Search Results

1. 2024-07-18-Updated-Notice-of-Hearing-MEP-Coastal.pdf [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...where the hearing time allocated by the Court is not used. 3 EVIDENCE The parties must (subject to any existing timetable order or direction of the Court): Exchange no later than 10 working days before the date of hearing - all of the statements and evidence that will be produced to the Court at the hearing. 4 MĀORI LANGUAGE AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS If any party or witness: 1. wishes to speak Māori at the hearing under the Māori Language Act 1987, or 2. has speci...

2. [2009] NZEmpC AC 35/09 Hamon v Coromandel Independent Living Trust [pdf, 14 KB]

   ...by the challenge procedure. [8] In these circumstances I have concluded that it would be inappropriate for the Court to now constrain the nature and extent of the hearing under s182 of the Act. [9] The defendant must file and serve its statement of defence to the amended statement of claim within 21 days of the date of this interlocutory judgment and the Registrar should then arrange for the challenge to be called over in the usual way. GL Colgan Chief Judge...

3. Vertongen v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 413) & Dunlop [2018] NZREADT 26 [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...matters by way of defence came to the consideration of the Committee was because they were relayed to the Committee via the investigator’s report. [2] In this case the investigator’s report dated 13 July 2017 contains a reasonably comprehensive statement of the grounds of defence. One key issue which is dealt with is stated by the investigator in these terms: 2. Whether the licensee made adequate attempts to communicate with the complainant when the purchaser raised issues wi...

4. BG v HL LCRO 71/2013 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...with Mr BG a proposal to seek a s 106 discharge, an approach that was agreed to by Mr BG. 1 Letter HL to Complaints Service (12 June 2012). 4 (j) She then obtained a copy of the complainant’s statement, and prepared a s 106 application. (k) At the sentencing hearing on 27 March 2012, the Judge had asked Mr BG if he wished to vacate his pleas. (l) Following the sentencing hearing Mr BG had advised her that he wished to vacat...

5. BORA Financial Markets Conduct Bill [pdf, 474 KB]

   ...Section 25(c) – Right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty • Offence provisions containing strict liability and reverse onus offences raise an issue of consistency with the presumption of innocence because an accused is required to prove a defence or disprove a presumption to escape liability instead of merely raise a defence in an effort to create reasonable doubt. These provisions create a risk that an accused may be convicted even though reasonable doubt exists as to his or...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 160 Wilson v Manukau Institute of Technology [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...could not resolve this issue, Mr Wilson brought an application under reg 52 of the Regulations. [10] Mr Oldfield, counsel for the plaintiff, submitted that in the event of non-compliance with that order, MIT should be prevented from relying on the defences it has pleaded at para 7(b), (d) and (e) of the statement of defence. He argued that a similar direction should be made in respect of para 13 of the statement of defence where MIT pleads that Mr Wilson’s dismissal “was based...

7. BORA Financial Advisers Bill [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...proceedings must therefore prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused is guilty. 37. Reverse onus offences give rise to an issue of inconsistency with section 25(c) because the accused is required to prove (on the balance of probabilities) a defence to escape liability. In other criminal proceedings an accused must merely raise a defence in an effort to create reasonable doubt. Where an accused is unable to prove the defence, then he or she could be convicted even though reasona...

8. Tsai Mao TRI 2016-100-00010 [2018] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 491 KB]

   ...(which caused them to draw down a large mortgage) if they had known of the findings of the Realsure report. The claim estimates that the remedial costs will be nearly nine hundred thousand dollars. [10] The respondents respond, among other defences, that the claims are time barred. The Council argues the repair costs are out of all proportion to the property’s loss in value. And, that diminution in value is the appropriate measure of damage. Factual Findings [11] The...

9. Haig v Proprietors of Waipiro A13 Incorporation (2006) 169 Gisborne MB 260 (169 GIS 260) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...minutes and correspondence makes this plain. This background is important to any assessment of the claims made in these proceedings . . [19] The key events occurred over 17 years ago. The obvious principal witness, Mr W T Haig, is deceased. His bank statements for 1988 and 1989 are not available, given the passage of time and it would appear that none of his personal papers have been located that might assist. He did however refer to the loans in his will but without specifying the...

10. [2008] NZEmpC AC 18/08 Nelson v Fletcher Steel Ltd [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...18/08 26 May 2008 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 18/08 ARC 1/08 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file an amended statement of claim BETWEEN ERIC NELSON Plaintiff AND FLETCHER STEEL LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 26 May 2008 (Heard at Auckland (in Chambers)) Appearances: Ken Nicholson, Counsel for Plaintiff Carl Blake, Counsel for Defendant J...