Search Results

1. SC & TO Partnership v QS & TS & JT Ltd [2022] NZDT 84 (24 May 2022) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a DJTtrict Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a supporting affidavit, then serve it on the other parties. There JT a fee for thJT application. DJTtrict Court proceedings are more complex than DJTputes Tribunal proceedings, and you may wJTh to seek legal advice. The DJTtrict Court may, on determinat...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 6 C3 Ltd v O’Brien [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...which the Authority granted Ethan O’Brien’s application for interim reinstatement.1 This judgment resolves that challenge. [2] The Authority’s determination sets out the background facts in some detail.2 The parties have filed further affidavit evidence with the Court. The key facts follow: (a) C3 Ltd provides stevedoring services at the Auckland port operated by Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL). Like any port, the workplace is 1 O’Brien v C3 Ltd [2023] NZERA 612 (Membe...

3. [2024] NZREADT 35 – CAC 2108 v Barfoot Thompson (20 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...[44]–[51]; and Katamat v Professional Conduct Committee [2012] NZHC 1633, [2012] NZAR 320 at [49]. 9 SUBMISSIONS [36] Penalty submissions were filed by the Committee on 12 August 2024 and on behalf of Barfoot Greenlane on 3 September 2024. An affidavit was filed on 3 September 2024 by Lisa Gerrard (Ms Gerrard), general counsel for Barfoot Greenlane. A hearing to consider penalty was held on 9 September 2024. We set out the parties’ submissions below. The Committee...

4. Singh v Singh and Scorpion Liquor (2006) Ltd [2016] NZHRRT 38 [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...date of the hearing but have elected to do nothing”. As a result, the Tribunal heard only the evidence of the plaintiff Satnam Singh. [4] Its decision in favour of Satnam Singh dated 9 March 2015 was set aside on 2 June 2015 on the basis of affidavits from the first defendant Shane Singh and his mother Raj Devi, the owner and director of the second defendant, that neither had been served with the notice of proceedings and that neither was aware of the hearing date. The plainti...

5. Canterbury / Westland Standards Committee 3 v Johnson [2018] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 464 KB]

   ...whom through his company was Ed 19 The expert engaged by the defence, who characterised the transaction as a “usual” purchase between arm’s length parties. 20 NOE page 169. 21 In his supplementary affidavit. 15 Johnston who of course had an interest in seeing that the transaction proceed. I don’t see how it was possible to assume that proper enquiries had been made before and particularly that proper advice had been given...

6. [2020] NZEnvC 180 The Trustees of the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust v Bay of Plenty Regional Council.pdf [pdf, 541 KB]

   ...far and express understandable concern should that investment be wasted. Opposition to Application [18] The application is opposed by the Council. On 13 March 2020 it filed and served a notice of opposition, a memorandum of counsel and draft affidavits of Mr J F Low, its Team Leader - Freshwater Policy and Mr R M Gardiner, its Senior Planner - Freshwater Policy and previously one of its Maori Policy Advisors responding to the affidavit of Mr Sayers. [19] The grounds for the Coun...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 35 Radford v Chief of New Zealand Defence Force [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...relationships.3 [8] MFAT participated by making submissions and relying on an affidavit by its Principal Advisor, Organisational Capability Team. Agreed Statement of Facts [9] The parties prepared an agreed statement of facts supplemented by affidavits from Ms Radford and Nigel Lucie-Smith, who is a legal advisor employed by the CDF. The following description of events is taken from those sources. [10] On 4 October 2010, Ms Radford started working for the New Zealand D...

8. Brunton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2023] NZACC 187 [pdf, 382 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 187 ACR 233/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN JULIE BRUNTON Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 8 May 2023 Heard at: Auckland Appearances: J Brunton, appellant in person (by AVL, audio only as video unavailable) I Hunt for respondent Judgment: 17 Novem

9. [2024] NZEnvC 025 Shundi Queenstown Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...Modified Proposal are classed as restricted discretionary and other aspects discretionary. 18 Therefore, we consider the bundle of activities that comprise the Modified Proposal as a discretionary activity for the purposes of our 17 18 Edmonds affidavit 21 December 2021 at [16]. Edmonds affidavit 21 December 2021 at [20]. 9 determination. [20] At first instance, the proposal was assessed as a non-complying activity because of the uncertainty at that time as to \vhether cons...

10. [2006] NZEmpC AC 60/06 Kapadia v PRP Auckland Ltd (formerly Axiom Rolle PRP Valuations Services Ltd) [pdf, 25 KB]

    ...pursue it in New Zealand. [11] Mr Patterson submitted that the evidence of Mr Kapadia’s financial situation had not been presented on oath but he accepted the plaintiff’s oral submissions and declined Mr Kapadia’s offer to provide an affidavit supporting his lack of assets and income. [12] There is material which does support the plaintiff’s contention that his parlous financial situation was caused by the actions that had been taken against him by the defendant. In...