Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 24 Aslam v Transportation Auckland Corp Ltd [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...immune, with that calculation as follows: Activity Days (daily tariff of $2,230) Amount Filing opposition to interlocutory application (application for publication of transcript) 0.6 $1,338 Defendant’s preparation of briefs or affidavits 2 $4,460 Defendant’s preparation of list of issues, agreed facts, authorities and common bundle 1 $2,230 Preparation for Hearing 2 $4,460 Appearance at hearing for sole or principal representative 1.25 $2,787....

2. [2018] NZEmpC 49 Talbot Agriculture Ltd v Wate [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...made directing both parties to file and serve briefs of evidence. Talbot Agriculture has complied but Mr Wate has not done so, as a result of an oversight or omission on the part of Mr Horan. The application [4] On 7 May 2018, Mr Horan filed an affidavit, described as a formal request for an extension of time, deposing to the circumstances which led to this oversight. That application has been opposed by Talbot Agriculture. [5] At the heart of the application is a statement by M...

3. [2018] NZEmpC 58 Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Ltd t/a Rocklabs [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...1 Ioan v Scott Technology NZ Ltd t/a Rocklabs [2018] NZEmpC 4. [3] The parties have agreed that the application for a stay and for costs if that application proceeds ought to be considered on the papers. No affidavit evidence was filed. [4] For the reasons set out below, I have declined the application for a stay and awarded $22,000 in costs to Rocklabs. The Court has a broad power to award costs [5] The Court’s power to award costs is fo

4. Marsden - Waikawa Village Sec 1B2A (2003) 102 South Island MB 91 (102 SI 91) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...Attempting to address the Court's reluctance to agree to any action which would further erode Maori landholding, it was argued before the Court that the owners of this land possess other Maori land interests and intend to retain these. In her affidavit, Marion Marsden stated: A further consideration in reaching the decision was that the families have never sold any land which they have inherited or succeeded to and do not intend to sell any other land. They are in fact retaining oth...

5. 2017 NZEnvC-121 Auckland Council [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...applied pursuant to s 281 of the RMA for various waivers and directions in respect of potential appeals arising under s 156(1) of the LGATPA that may be brought as a result of the High Court's Judgment. [3] The application was accompanied by an affidavit of Cecilia Anne Davison on behalf of Auckland Council, dated 9 August 2017. 1 [2017] NZHC 1349. 3 [4] The application has been made on an ex parte basis, and the Council has confirmed that no party wishes to seek leave to...

6. Western Bay of Plenty Distrisc Council v Clarke - Te Puke 1A24 (2007) 318 Rotorua MB 140 (318 ROT 140) [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...and the Applicant District Council obtained judgements against the respondents, on the 1 st of August 2006 for the amount of $19,056.49 together with costs, which bought the amount of the judgment to $38,060.26. [7J Paragraphs 25 and 26 of the affidavit fLIed in SUppOlt of the application for a charging order to be made by tlus Comt read as follows: "25 - On 21 September 2006 the Council applied for orders for examination of the respondents. Mr Clarke foiled to attend to the exa...

7. Notes on appeals to the High Court [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...relevant facts determined by the Authority in its decision. If the point of law includes a contention that there was no evidence on which the Authority could reach its decision, or a specified part of it; then (and only then) copies of the documents, affidavits and exhibits that were placed before the Authority must be attached (Rule 21.9 of the High Court Rules). The grounds of the Authority’s determination Set out why the Authority made its decision, as far as is relevant to the...

8. [2018] NZEnvC 215 35 Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...bring it into line with the balance of the property and with the neighbouring residential properties. Removing the notation indicating the presence of the Cottonwood tree will correct a factual error. [12] From my review of the evidence in the affidavits of Mr Maxwell-Steele in support of the application, and of the Council's planning officer Han Long Ng in response, I accept that this is a clear case of a mistake in the mapping of zones and overlays in the AUP which was not pi...

9. Notes on appeals to the High Court [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...relevant facts determined by the Authority in its decision. If the point of law includes a contention that there was no evidence on which the Authority could reach its decision, or a specified part of it; then (and only then) copies of the documents, affidavits and exhibits that were placed before the Authority must be attached (Rule 21.9 of the High Court Rules). The grounds of the Authority’s determination Set out why the Authority made its decision, as far as is relevant to the...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 85 Sawyer v The Vice-Chancellor of Victoria University of Wellington [pdf, 323 KB]

    ...First, the Vice- Chancellor said that, at its core, Dr Sawyer’s application contained an untrue allegation, namely that her lawyer had consented to the Authority making an order without her instructions and knowledge. Second, Dr Sawyer filed affidavits that reiterated that untruthful allegation. Third, she compounded matters by giving untruthful evidence in court about her instructions to her lawyer. [8] The Vice-Chancellor submitted that Dr Sawyer’s behaviour prolonged the...