Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 71 Knapp v Locktite Aluminium Specialities Ltd [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...be circumstances in which such an outcome is entirely consistent with the remedial scheme of the Act, including the Court’s jurisdiction to make such decisions or orders as in equity and good conscience it thinks fit. 8 And as the Court of Appeal observed in Ark Aviation Ltd: 9 The purpose of the direction to assess the nature and extent of remedies, including sums which in general must be awarded to reimburse lost wages according to what is thought just and equitable, is to e...

2. RB v SCX LCRO 92/2014 (11 August 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...s 213(2) of the Act to provide reasons for its decisions. [20] The role of this Office, when considering a review of a decision to lay charges against a practitioner before the Disciplinary Tribunal was the subject of comment by the Court of Appeal in Orlov. 3 In the first instance, the Court accepted that “[t]here is now oversight of the referral decision by the independent LCRO”.4 [21] In its judgment the Court also found there was no threshold test to meet before matters co...

3. Forrest v Kamara Developments Ltd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 28 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...considered such evidence, I can state that the substance of such submissions would not have altered this determination. [20] Ms Macky for the claimants and the Council submitted that in Bowen v Paramount Builders (Hamilton) Ltd1 the Court of Appeal held that “contractors, architects and engineers are all subject to a duty to use reasonable care to prevent damage to persons whom they should reasonably expect to be affected by their work”. I agree with that submission....

4. Cole & Anor v Euro-Asia Investments Ltd & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 8 [pdf, 140 KB]

   ........................................................................................................15 CONCLUSION AND ORDERS ...............................................................................17 Page | 3 INTRODUCTION [1] This claim has been remitted back to the Tribunal by the High Court following an appeal against the Tribunal’s final determination of 19 April 2012.1 The Tribunal has been directed by the High Court to determine the quantum of damages...

5. BT v OS LCRO 2/2013 (17 November 2014) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...to rekindle their discussions over GD’s purchase of his fit-out. At the review hearing BT said he considered that would be a good outcome for them both, enabling him to recover some of the cost of the fit-out, and GD to enhance the unit’s appeal to her prospective new tenant. [12] Having spoken with OS and GD on the phone, BT retrieved a previous version of an agreement he had drafted, altered it to include amendments proposed by OS, and emailed it to him. [13] BT acknowl...

6. Grubb and Anor as Trustees of the Bas Trust v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 58 [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...the estimate of $20,000.00 is not relevant. 15 [44] The parties asked me to decide if the claimants were „the material or substantial cause of their own loss‟, or whether they contributed to their own loss. [45] The Court of Appeal has stated that the extent of contributory negligence is a matter for judgement in the circumstances of the case, ranging from a small deduction from the damages awarded to a very high one. In her judgment in Findlay, Ellis J stated t...

7. BORA Sale of Liquor (Youth Alcohol Harm Reduction) Amendment Bill [pdf, 347 KB]

   ...inherent in setting social policy in complex areas suggest that Parliament should, in some circumstances, be allowed a degree of flexibility in such areas. This view is also supported by judgments of the Privy Council and the New Zealand Court of Appeal. 19 35. We note also the "deference" approach found throughout Canadian case law is persuasive, notably in M v H [1999] 2 SCR 3. The Court considered that the legislature's burden under the Charter: "…will [someti...

8. BORA Immigration Amendment Bill (No 2) [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...treatment. 6.The Government is under an obligation not to deport a person where the person faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or the arbitrary taking of life 1. 7.Clauses 35, 39 and 56 affect the circumstances in which a person may appeal against a decision on humanitarian grounds. These amendments do not affect a person’s ability to claim asylum in New Zealand. If a person alleged they would be subject to torture or death if returned to their home country or country...

9. ZA v GL LCRO 258/2012 (31 March 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...discretion, it is appropriate for the LCRO to exercise particular caution before substituting his own judgment for that of the Standards Committee, without good reason. [21] In Deliu v Hong it was noted that a review is:1 … much broader than an appeal. It gives the Review Officer discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review as to the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review, and therefore clearly contemplates the Review Officer reaching hi...

10. NE v RL LCRO 88/2013 (27 February 2015) [pdf, 82 KB]

    ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing