Search Results

1. Reeves v Gardiner - Waikawa Village Sections 15A, 15B and 15C (2011) 8 Te Waipounamu MB 194 (8 TWP 194) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...this Court does not have jurisdiction to award costs to lay persons for costs incurred by themselves in relation to this proceeding. [12] In Hapeta - Whakapoungakau 3B1B Trust 3 the Maori Appellate Court referred to a decision of the Court of Appeal in Official Assignee v Registrar of the High Court at Christchurch 4 which reaffirmed the general rule of practice that a lay litigant should not be paid for their time and trouble unless there were exceptional circumstances that jus...

2. CAC10073 v Philip Kenny Real Estate Ltd [2013] NZREADT 19 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...serious and comprises a breach of the Act but, in this particular case, can be regarded as at the lower end of the scale due to the factors set out above. [41] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Ms...

3. MacMillan v NZ Parole Board [2013] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...offender to make submissions to the Board. (7) The Board must give a written copy of every order or determination to the offender who is the subject of the order or determination, along with information about how the offender may exercise any review or appeal rights that he or she has in relation to the order or determination. (8) Any person who publishes information provided under this section in a form that identifies, or enables the identification of, a victim (as defined in section 4 o...

4. Steele v Salisbury School (Costs) [2012] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...The submissions by Mr Steele [6] In his memorandum dated 30 October 2012 Mr Steele, in part, invites the Tribunal to revisit the facts. This we are unable to do. He also raises irrelevant matters relating to the School’s insurer and to his appeal to the High Court against the Tribunal’s decision. 4 Doing the best we can it would appear that the submissions relevant to the costs issue are: [6.1] At the commencement of the proceedings Mr Steele would have settled for a $3...

5. CAC20002 v Daji [2015] NZREADT 14 [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...sentencing indication, but we fine the defendant $2000, to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within 20 working days of this decision. [32] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ M...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 245 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...destruction or non-alteration as she fears. The defendant’s preparedness to agree to a stay on that condition has been consistently held out to the plaintiff but rejected by her. [22] Although the law on stays of execution of remedies pending appeals has from time to time set out a number of tests to be applied, the overall consideration is where the interests of justice lie until the Court can finally determine the proceeding. [23] I am satisfied that the interests of justice in...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 221 Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...action on the part of the defendants have been filed. [19] One thing which emerged during the course of the hearing is that Mr Bali currently has no permit to remain in New Zealand but is entitled to stay here at the moment as a result of pending appeals in respect of decisions made on his residence application. Apparently, the outcome of these proceedings in the Employment Court may be material to the outcome of those other proceedings. A belated attempt was made by the defenda...

8. Tank Trust v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...justified pursuant to s 91(1)(a). 6 Transcript, 18 December 2012 at page 18. 7 Body Corporate 170989 v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 35. 8 This decision is under appeal. Page | 9 Did the claimants incur unnecessary costs as a result of the Council’s actions? [25] The Council contends that it was always necessary for the claimants to instruct either Mr Flay or someone else with similar ex...

9. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 48 [pdf, 101 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000018 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 48 BETWEEN SLAVE TOMOV, LILJANA TOMOVO AND DAVENPORTS WEST TRUSTEE COMPANY (NO 1) LIMITED Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND MODERN HOMES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Second Respondent AND ANDREW THOMAS Third Respondent AND PBS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND GEORGE MAREVICH Fifth Respondent AND ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (Removed) Sixth Responde

10. Griffiths & Anor v Plaster Systems Ltd & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or an argument that lacks merit. Baragwanath J in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation14 stated increased costs may be ordered where there is a failure by the paying party to act reasonably. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that an uplift is justifiable where particular conduct unreasonably increases costs above what might ordinarily have been expected,15 but it is only to that extent that any uplift from the scale is justified....