Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 106 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...interlocutory applications that were brought as of right and determined. If the plaintiff is correct, any litigation privilege in those documents has now expired by reason of the disposal of the associated litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal by a judgment late last year of the Supreme Court. 4 That is a matter that the plaintiff is entitled to have determined. I will give directions at the end of this judgment about how that issue is to be determined....

2. Appleby Building Ltd v C Alva LCRO 117 / 2009 (12 October 2009) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...is privileged this may amount to such a good reason. [8] The fact that a solicitor may not claim privilege in respect of a demand of him or her to produce evidence in response to a professional complaint was determined by the English Court of Appeal in Parry-Jones v Law Society (1969) 1 Ch 1; [1966] 1 All ER 177. It is of note that the privilege in this case belongs to Mr Andrew’s client (Helmsdale). Lawyer-client privilege gives the client a right to refuse to produce those docu...

3. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Tweeddale v Pearson File No: TRI 2008-101-000067/ DBH 02946 Court: WHT Adjudicator: R Pitchforth Date of Decision: 1 December 2009 Background This is a decision dealing with claims made against: First and second respondents: Mr Pearson and Ms Tucker as previous owners Third respondent: Palmerston North City Council Fourth respondent: Mr Humphries as the alleged project manager and director of Humphries Construction Ltd, the construction company Fif

4. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 24 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2007-100-0000064 BETWEEN PAUL WHITE and WILNA WHITE Claimants AND RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL First Respondent AND LORELLE JOY KERKIN Second Respondent ______________________________________________________________ COST DETERMINATION Dated 23 April 2009 Background 1. On 4 March 2009 the Tribunal is

5. O'Connor v MacDee McLennan Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 67 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...affected. Due to the financial pressures they could not attend their niece’s wedding in Melbourne. [35] Generally an award of $25,000 per unit for occupiers is made based on the decisions of William Young P and Baragwanath J in the Court of Appeal in O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 [2010] NZCA 65, [2010] NZLR 445 [Byron Ave], Mok v Bolderson HC Auckland CIV 2010 404 7292, 20 April 2011 and Cao v Auckland City Council HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-7093, 18 May 2011. Accordingly,...

6. Han v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 19 [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...reasonable cost of the consequential losses the claimants will inccur as a result of the remedial work. Page | 6 [18] The claimants and Council also agreed that the sum of $25,000 in general damages should be awarded. The Court of Appeal in Sunset Terraces and Byron Avenue2 agreed that the appropriate measure depends on individual circumstances but for owner-occupiers the usual award would be in the vicinity of $25,000. [19] I accept that Mr Han and Mrs Woo have bo...

7. Abernethy v Coughlan [pdf, 29 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Abernethy & Anor v Coughlan & Ors File No: TRI 2009-100-000022/ DBH 01666 Court: WHT Adjudicator: RM Carter Date of Decision: 26 August 2009 Background The claimants, Mr and Mrs Abernethy, own a townhouse that was built in 1994 and they purchased it in 2003. The house is suffering damage from leaks and needs to be reclad. The claimants therefore sought $334,846.10 from all respondents. Summary of Facts Mr Coughlan, Mr Humphrey and 2 other people,

8. BORA Police Complaints Authority (Conditional Name Protection) Amendment Bill [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...consistent with the Bill of Rights Act if it can be considered a "reasonable limit" that is "justifiable" in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. 12. In Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review, [1] the Court of Appeal developed a set of guidelines that are of assistance when assessing whether a provision constitutes a justified limitation in terms of section 5 of the Bill of Rights Act. The inquiry required by Moonen is essentially two-fold; whether...

9. Wikatene - Tauranga Taupo 1B 2B No 2 (2017) 376 Aotea MB 81 (376 AOT 81) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...enforce the obligations of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise). 376 Aotea MB 84 [16] The obligations of trustees are well settled and need not be repeated here. The relevant legal principles were set out by the Court of Appeal in Rameka v Hall.4 I adopt those principles. Discussion [17] The last review of this trust was conducted in 2015 upon application by Mr Wikatene. During the proceedings, a special general hui was held on 2 May 2015. At that...

10. [2018] NZEnvC 003 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 281 KB]

    BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND Decision No. [2018] NZEnvC 003 of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an appeal pursuant to s 120 of the Act AUCKLAND COUNCIL (ENV-2017-AKL-000105) Appellant JANICE BUDDEN, MARK GITTOS AND MICHAEL ROWE AS TRUSTEES OF THE LONDON PACIFIC FAMILY TRUST Respondent Court: Principal Environment Judge LJ Newhook Environment Judge JJM Hassan Environment Commissioner RM Dunlop Env...