Search Results

1. Fehling v Appleby [2014] NZHRRT 24 [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...Privacy Act. Those members were the Chairperson, RPG Haines QC, Ms J Grant, Member and Ms S Scott, Member. The application was dismissed in Fehling v Appleby (Recusal Application) [2014] NZHRRT 11 (17 March 2014). Neither decision was challenged on appeal. [7] At the commencement of the hearing Mr Fehling made two applications: [7.1] First, that the Tribunal address certain further issues under the Insolvency Act, particularly in relation to the remedies the Tribunal can award agains...

2. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v PL [2016] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...disclose documents to O. He subsequently lied to the WH Tribunal. The truth did not reveal itself until it was discovered after the claim before the WH Tribunal had been determined. [85] We adopt the remarks of Katz J in her decision on I’s appeal from the costs decision of the WH Tribunal which she made at para 57 and which we summarise: (a) Discovery of the documents would likely have seriously undermined the claim before the WH Tribunal; 21 (b) The apartments had been...

3. SW v Standards Committee LCRO 371/2013 (14 September 2015) [pdf, 104 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. [22] 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...

4. AN v DH LCRO 119/2015 (23 December 2015) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...investigations into lawyers’ conduct, service and costs, 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 [49] Ms AN attended an applicant only review heari...

5. AW v ZK LCRO 230/2012 (28 March 2014) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...two costs assessors that the fee invoices did not amount to overcharging.9 [16] I am not constrained or limited in the scope of my review by the decision of the Standards Committee. The review jurisdiction of this Office is broader than an appeal and it gives the Review Officer a discretion concerning the approach to be taken on any particular review. The Review Officer must come to his or her own decision.10 Review jurisdiction – complaints concerning fee invoices pre-LCA...

6. RN v QW LCRO 226/2012 (8 September 2016) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...No. 1 of the Auckland District Law Society v P (2001) 18 PRNZ 760 (HC). and in particular the fact that “the discretion to omit fresh evidence should be sparingly used and not to provide litigants with an opportunity to bolster their case on appeal”. Counsel submits the evidence does not meet the test for “fresh evidence” for the reasons explained in the submissions. 15 [79] As to delay, the date of the conduct, 14 August 2009, is raised and the time the complaint and rev...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 235 Young v Bay Of Plenty DHB [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...[67] Shorn of all embellishments, collateral complaints and attacks on the Board, Mr Young’s grievance that he was dismissed unjustifiably has been heard and determined by the Employment Relations Authority. Mr Young lost his opportunity to appeal against that determination by de novo challenge and was not permitted to do so out of time. He is faced with what lawyers call issue estoppel. This is the rule of law that prohibits the same issue being tried again in separate proceedin...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 37 Edminstin v Sanford Ltd [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...he was successful and is, therefore, entitled to an order in his favour. In supporting this claim, Mr Andrew’s submissions relied on the discretion to award costs in cl 19 of sch 3 of the Act and on the principles derived from three Court of Appeal decisions: Victoria University of Wellington v Alton- Lee,20 Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd,21 and Health Waikato v Elmsly.22 Initially, no submissions were made about the appropriateness, or reasonableness, of applying the Court’s Guid...

9. Complaints Assessment Committee (CAC 408) v Nicholas Schembri, Joseph Lupi & Timothy Kearins [2017] NZREADT 24 [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...confirm to the Tribunal whether she is still seeking name suppression within 28 days. 21 (e) Until the Tribunal have submissions on name suppression the decision will not be published. [43] The Tribunal draws the parties attention to the appeal provisions of s. 116 Real Estate Agents Act. …………………………………………………………………. Ms KG Davenport QC Chairperson …………………………………...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 61 Butterfield v Alliance Group Ltd [pdf, 364 KB]

    ...were persons intending to work was based on them advising AFFCO at the end of one season of their current addresses and phone numbers on which they wished to be contacted for employment at the beginning of the following season. In the Court of Appeal, the Court held that the freezing workers did not fall within the definition of “persons intending to work” because the formal elements of an employment contract were required, rather than simply an intention by the workers to take...