Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 214 The Selwyn Foundation v Nayathodan [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...– not only to the applicant but also affected non-parties. Although an ability to challenge the refusal of a non-publication order at an interlocutory stage may disrupt unfinished Authority business, in the sense identified by the Court of Appeal in Rawlings, its distinguishing characteristic is that it is not the sort of determination that can subsequently be remedied on a challenge or by way of review. The horse will have well and truly bolted by that stage. … [27] In t...

2. ABS Ltd v ZYL and ZYK [2013] NZDT 36 (15 March 2013) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...was a “mistake” for the purpose of the section. My understanding of s 28 is that it applies only where the mistake is an essential ingredient of the cause of action – for example, a payment under a mistake of fact or law. In the Court of Appeal case of Vanvi Ltd v Dawson [1980] 1 NZLR 513, Cooke J said that the same provision in the Limitation Act 1939 (UK) had been regarded as applying to actions in quasi-contract for the recovery of money paid by mistake of fact, and to clai...

3. AAJ and AAK v ZZR [2012] NZDT 2 (28 September 2012) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...any trade, business, industry, profession, occupation, activity of commerce, or undertaking relating to the supply or acquisition of goods or services or the to the disposition or acquisition of any interest in land”. [36] In the Court of Appeal case of Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor [2009] 2 NZLR 17 (CA), it was found that a person does not need to be trading in a personal capacity to be considered “in trade” and that an employee, agent or director of a company may be pers...

4. CAC 10043 v Brooker [2012] NZREADT 23 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...agent guilty of professional misconduct on different facts to those contained in the charge. To do so would seem to be contrary to natural justice. [26] Pursuant to s 113 of the Act the Tribunal advises the parties of the existence of the right to appeal this decision to the High Court conferred by s 116 of the Act. DATED at AUCKLAND this 3 day of May 2012 ______________________________ ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member...

5. Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee v Giddens [2014] NZLCDT 40 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...decisions which had involved breach of undertakings, firstly to establish that the offence of misconduct had been committed rather than the negligence or unsatisfactory conduct alternatives. In particular we were referred to the dicta of the Court of Appeal in W v Auckland Standards Committee 3 of the New Zealand Law Society,1 [17] At paragraph 48 the Court said: where at paragraph 47 the importance of undertaking was reaffirmed by the Court. “There may be cases where a breac...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 97 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 268 KB]

   ...defaulting party’s obligation clearly defined. That can especially apply where a party’s obligation is to serve particular documents but not file them. [7] In support of her application for ‘unless’ orders and relying on the Court of Appeal’s judgment in SM v LFDB, 2 the plaintiff contends that such orders may be made where there has been a repeated failure to comply with a party’s disclosure obligations and not merely with a specific court order such as one of those ma...

7. Bedford v Luton LCRO 72 / 2009 (29 June 2009) - Penalty and Costs [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...it that factor in itself is enough to warrant a disciplinary response: Bentley v Gaisford [1997] QB 627 (CA) at p 648 per Henry LJ); Commissioner of Inland Revenue v Bhanabhai [2007] 2 NZLR 478 para [50] per William Young P. The English Court of Appeal has stated that failure to implement a solicitor's undertaking is prima facie to be regarded as a professional breach: Udall v Capri Lighting Ltd [1987] 3 All ER 262 at 269. The fact that there has been no “dishonourable conduc...

8. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...therefore lead to detriment to the client. Understandably Mr Q was of the view that Lawyer I held such information. Lawyer I took the opposite view. The question of what kind of information might be relevant was 4 considered by the Court of Appeal in Russell McVeagh McKenzie Bartleet & Co v Tower Corporation [1998] 3 NZLR 641. In that case the Court rejected an argument at general information about the manner in which business was conducted was relevant to the new matter....

9. O'Connor v Macdee McLennon Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...originally claimed were accepted as being in excess of the $25,000.00 per unit that usually applied. [29] 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 3, Mok v Bolderson, 4 and Cao v Auckland City Council 5. Accordingly, the appropriate joint award to the claimants for general damages is $25,000 for anxiety, disappointment, physical inconvenien...

10. Body Corporate 206697 & Unit Owners of Eden 2 v QBE Insurance (International) Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 44 [pdf, 118 KB]

    ...High Court scale. [19] In the circumstances of this case, therefore, I consider that a contribution towards the actual costs should be awarded. I do not however consider that there are grounds for ordering indemnity costs. The Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation10 recognised the categories in respect of which the discretion may be exercised was not closed, but note the following circumstances in which indemnity costs have been ordered:...