Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 107 Zespri International Ltd v Yu interlocutory [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Challenged Documents and he is then to return the laptop to the plaintiff. (n) The IT Expert is to retain in his possession the Clone and any Working Copy of the information on the computer until such time as the proceedings and any challenge or appeal has been finally determined either by agreement or order [of] the ERA or a competent Court, following which the IT Expert is to delete all such information. (o) Leave is reserved for the IT Expert and/or the parties to seek furt...

2. Tawera v Tawera – Waitangi A1A2 (2014) 39 Tairawhiti MB 45 (39 TRW 45) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...attempt to partition her shares in the block. Mrs Tawera acquired those shares through a series of gifts from members of the Reedy whānau. 1 Her application for partition was successful in the Māori Land Court but that decision was reversed on appeal by the Māori Appellate Court in 1992 and her partition was reduced to a right to occupy. 2 This history was covered by the Māori Appellate Court in Tāmati Muturangi Reedy v Heneti Tawera - Waitangi A1A2 (1992) and is reproduced be...

3. Body Corporate 85927, 38 Roxborough St v Wellington City Council [2010] NZWHT Wellington 12 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...(Sunset Terraces)3 where Heath J held that if the building could be built by a reasonable builder who would have access to the manufacturers‟ specifications no greater detail would be required to achieve a workmanlike result. This was upheld on appeal in Sunset Terraces4 where Baragwanath J said: [121] I agree with the Judge. No purpose would be served by requiring a designer to incur the cost of providing detail not reasonably necessary for the task. There being no carelessn...

4. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...claims7. [26] In Hartley v Balemi8 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor9 considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.10 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in Trevor Ivory was not an element of every...

5. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...an inappropriate strategy on a number of levels. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that DG contrived a situation whereby he could make a complaint against BU. While DG says he sought to resolve the impasse by an appeal to BU’s sense of collegiality, DG could, and should, have done things differently. [53] DG knew he was acting on the instructions of a disgruntled client. There was no reason for DG to expose himself to the risk he took in laying...

6. IV v DD & Ors LCRO 272/2012 (1 March 2016) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...Penalty [62] The Standards Committee censured Mr IV, imposed a fine of $500, ordered him to pay costs of $500 and to reduce his fees to $9,500 plus GST. I will address each of these. Censure [63] A censure has been described by the Court of Appeal as:18 a formal or official statement rebuking a practitioner for his or her unsatisfactory conduct. A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into accou...

7. AG v ZQ LCRO 204/2011 (14 February 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...allegation of breach of equitable duty. The Court had the benefit of examining all of the evidence, and the cross examination of the evidence. If the Complainant disagreed with the Court’s judgment, the proper step would have been to seek an appeal. It is not appropriate to revisit this matter again here. [27] A fifth matter alleged that the Practitioner had verbally abused the Complainant when he went to his lawyer’s office to sign an agreement. The Complainant explained...

8. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 53 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 481 KB]

   ...finishing by June 2002. The Wairarapa and Urewera inquiries will follow a similar track as will any new inquiries as they come on stream. In the meantime, the northern South Island inquiry awaits a hearing on procedural matters in the Court of Appeal before it can recommence its progress. The cen- tral North Island districts of Rotorua, Taupo, and Kaingaroa are being readied for hearing in an intensive research process. Other districts such as the King Country, Whanganui and the East...

9. Lee v Mangapapa B2 Incorporation - Mangapapa B2 (2017) 140 Waikato Maniapoto MB 83 (140 WMN 83) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...to the plaintiff should compensate the plaintiff. 5 4 Adlam v Savage - Lot 39A Sec 2A Parish of Matata and Lot 39A Sec 2B No 2B No 2A Parish of Matata [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 59 (2015 APPEAL 59). 5 Day v Mead [1987] 2 NZLR 443, at 463-464. 140 Waikato Maniapoto MB 95 [50] The key matters to take into account in relation to the commencement date for interest are: a) There is no fixed rule; 6 b) Generally justi...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 98 Ovation NZ Ltd v The NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union [pdf, 343 KB]

    ...claim. [16] This distinction will need to be considered with reference to the question of whether the documents which are sought are or are not “relevant’ in the legal sense. This term is defined in reg 38, which was discussed by the Court of Appeal in ASB Bank Ltd v Nel when it said:7 The test for disclosure under reg 38 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 is broad and based on the Peruvian Guano test ... The wording of the regulation is wide and includes documents tha...