Search Results

1. OIA-99080.pdf [pdf, 1.9 MB]

   ...review stage subsequently creating another court event.16 15 This was to mitigate suggestions of malpractice highlighted in Transforming the Legal Aid System: Final Report and Recommendations. Retrieved from https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/Legal%20AidReview.pdf. PDS now take, on average, 50% of criminal cases that are given to legal aid. 16 Sector Group, Ministry of Justice. (March 2019) Case Progression Analysis. Presentation, Wellington: New Zealand. (Unpublished)....

2. Rafiq v Civil Aviation Authority [2013] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...aviation document. Following conviction he was fined $500 2 on each charge with $130 court costs. It is these circumstances which are the background to the present proceedings. The proceedings – a summary [2] On 10 November 2011 Mr Rafiq filed with the Tribunal two separate proceedings under the Privacy Act 1993. The proceedings in HRRT040/2011 cited the “Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand” as defendant while the proceedings in HRRT041/2011 cited the “Civil Aviat...

3. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...on the deck directly above the lounge wall/ceiling junctions. The repairs were un-consented and not completed to a satisfactory standard. Modern Homes Development Limited paid some of the repair costs. [23] On 1 July 2010, the claimants filed their claim with DBH. In his report of 9 September 2010, the assessor, Mr Firth recommended a full re-clad. THE DEFECTS [24] There was an experts’ conference prior to the adjudication which resulted in an agreed leaks lis...

4. LCRO 182/2014 DL v SJ, GS and PQ [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...Mr SJ”.11 (n) This too was met with a finding of unsatisfactory conduct.12 Conclusions (o) The Committee imposed a fine of $5,000 together with costs of $1,000.13 It directed publication of the facts.14 Review Application [35] Mr DL filed his application for review, through his counsel Mr CN, on 14 August 2014. Together with Mr CN’s supplementary written submissions, dated 12 September 2017, the grounds may be summarised as follows: (a) There was no la...

5. Lee v Auckland Council [2016] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...find that the inadequate balustrade slope is a defect. [26] The experts agreed that the defects require extensive repair work including recladding and timber replacement. Is GIL liable in negligence to the Lees? [27] Prior to hearing, GIL filed a statement of defence and a will say statement of expert conveyancing lawyer, Peter Nolan. GIL advised that it would not appear at the hearing and would abide the decision of the Tribunal. [28] GIL admits that it was the developer o...

6. Mullane v Attorney-General [2017] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 417 KB]

   ...management Minute issued on 24 March 2017, it was inevitable that in the particular circumstances of the case the Tribunal would be required to conduct a closed hearing to view documents withheld by the Police from Mr Mullane. [14] Those documents were filed as a closed bundle of documents and there was an additional volume of supplementary closed documents. [15] The only oral evidence received in the closed hearing was that given by Mr MJ Sadd, the Continuous Improvement Advisor in th...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 117 Underhill v Coca-Cola Amatil NZ Ltd [pdf, 429 KB]

   ...determination. [3] The employer did not consent to the grievances being raised outside the time limit. The plaintiffs have made no application to extend the time despite having been given the opportunity to do so. [4] The plaintiffs have filed a challenge to the determination, electing a hearing de novo. Coca-Cola defends the challenge but has filed an admission of cause of action for the purposes of the proceedings. It now admits that at all material times the plaintiffs...

8. [2011] NZEmpC 157 Heritage Expeditions Ltd v Fraser [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...extension of time sought. As a result, Heritage Expeditions Limited challenged the Authority’s second determination and sought a hearing de novo. [13] Shortly after that, Ms Ryder was engaged as counsel for Heritage Expeditions Limited and filed an amended statement of claim. The first ground relied on was that the Authority had no jurisdiction to reopen its investigation of its own volition and that its supplementary determination was therefore a nullity. That was dealt with...

9. Sisley & Anor v CAC301 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 50 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...complainant required that the valuation be “not for the public” and was not to be disclosed by them. Mr Lissington said he would keep the valuation in his desk drawer rather than in the filing cabinet in his room which contained the rest of the file for the complainant’s property. Mr Sisley states he did not take the valuation out of that drawer at any stage nor refer to it again. As a matter of practice he does not have regard to the views in a prior valuation, when preparing a p...

10. Nicholls v Nicholls – W T Nicholls Trust (2013) 55 Waikato Maniapoto MB 288 (55 WMN 288) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...Waikato-Maniapoto MB 250. 2 50 Waikato-Maniapoto MB 16. 55 Waikato Maniapoto MB 290 ii. In terms of other properties as noted in schedule 1 of the application, they have 30 days in which to vacate those lands. [6] Mr George Tama Nicholls filed an appeal on 5 February 2013 against the injunction order. [7] On 6 March 2013 Mr George Tama Nicholls filed an application for a stay of enforcement of the injunction order, including by way of transmission to the High Court, pe...