Search Results

1. Malik v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 7 [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...and is dismissed. Seventh Respondent [34] It was established at the witness summons hearing on 25 June 2010, which the seventh respondent, Mr Paul Graham, joined by telephone from his Thames Hospital bed, that he had signed a producer statement for the waterproofing applicator. Mr Graham died insolvent and intestate on 19 July 2010. As indicated in Cathie v Simes,1 the Tribunal is unable to make a determination against a person who is known to be deceased. As mentioned, Mr...

2. [2021] NZACC 176 - Renton v ACC (5 November 2021) [pdf, 728 KB]

   ...vexed by the same matter. This public interest is reinforced by the current emphasis on efficiency and economy in the conduct of litigation, in the interests of the parties and the public as a whole. The bringing of a claim or the raising of a defence in later proceedings may, without more, amount to abuse if the Court is satisfied (the onus being on the party alleging abuse) that the claim or defence should have been raised in the earlier proceedings if it was to be raised at all...

3. MC & Ors v ND LCRO 377/2013 (13 October 2014) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...that outcome and have applied for a review of the determination. In particular, they consider there should be some public accountability by means of publication of the finding, and presumably Mr ND’s name. In addition, they take issue with the statement by the Committee that there was no evidence of any loss for which they should be compensated. They seek repayment of the fees paid. [14] Ms MC refers to these as being the fees paid to OP Lawyers, but part of the funds had o...

4. GZ v TE LCRO 17 / 2011 (17 February 2012) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...observation by me at the review hearing, was that the Court would often in the circumstances make an “unless” order - i.e. that unless the party complied within a stated period of time they would be committed to prison. I do not know whether that statement by Mr HE is correct or not, but I do note that the draft Notice of Motion does not seek an Order in those terms. Instead, it seeks an Order that the Defendants be committed to prison. [57] Imprisonment of the defendants...

5. LCRO 47/2017 KD: Review of a prosecutorial decision (30 June 2017) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...provides considerable flexibility. [70] Evidence can be called and admissibility challenged. The Tribunal can resolve any issues that may arise, such as confidentiality and privilege. Witnesses can be cross examined. Mr KD may wish to raise defences. Those can be tested. Evidence could emerge beyond what was available to the Committee, and is available on review. At the conclusion of that process the Tribunal may make a merits-based decision. [71] If charges are ultimately...

6. Harris v Department of Corrections [2013] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...of the imprisonment warrants. However, even assuming such warrants have been mislaid, it does not provide any real support for the claim that 100 or so documents were lost at an Albany café. THE CASE FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [38] The defence advanced by Corrections is simple and straightforward. It is submitted that Mr Harris has not established on the balance of probabilities that a breach of Principle 11 has taken place. It follows that there has been no interference with...

7. Taylor v Orcon Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...internal discussion. The difficulty with this submission is that the information in question was given first to Mr Taylor, second to Baycorp and third to the Privacy Commissioner in the course of the investigation. The attempted disowning of the statements so late in the piece has the regrettable appearance of an opportunistic forensic submission. The inescapable point is the file notes held by Orcon contain no detectable trace of meaningful investigation of the claim made by Mr Taylor...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 48 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 290 KB]

   MIA NELSON v TONY WAYNE KATAVICH NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 [3 May 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 48 CRC 13/2013 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN MIA NELSON Plaintiff AND TONY WAYNE KATAVICH First Defendant AND HALDEMAN LLC Second Defendant Hearing: 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 September 2015 and 14, 15, 16 and 17 March 2016 (

9. IX v AQ & AP LCRO 57 / 2012 (23 May 2012) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...Tribunal, and that in doing so the Committee had shown “absolute contempt for the Disputes Tribunal process”. He noted that the Tribunal was unequivocal in its findings that he had been misled by the firm. [27] Mr IX also refers to alleged statements by Ms SE at the Disputes Tribunal hearing that if Mr IX, acting on the firm’s advice, had applied for an enforcement order, the outcome would have been different and more advantageous to Mr IX. [28] The outcome sought by Mr IX...

10. Li v The Real Estate Agents Authority NZREADT 10 [pdf, 346 KB]

    ...will assist the CAC to resolve your complaint. If you believe you have new and relevant information, you must call me by Friday 8 September 2017 to discuss it. [34] It was therefore obvious prior to the CAC embarking on its enquiry that a defence of adequate explanation was going to be put forward by the respondents. The information which the investigator provided made it clear by what means any evidence about the circumstances in which the agreement was entered into was to be...