Search Results

1. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Brill [2022] NZLCDT 3 (21 January 2022) [pdf, 557 KB]

   ...accepted that between 2 March 2015 and 20 September 2017 Mr Brill represented the plaintiffs and appeared as counsel in “leaky building” litigation (the “Bridgewater Litigation”) which began in the High Court and proceeded to the Court of Appeal and a subsequent application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. [22] Some of the Court documents refer to Mr Brill’s company, B E Brill Ltd, but it is accepted that the company had no role or status in the litigation. B E Br...

2. [2021] NZACC 133 – Larason v ACC (17 August 2021) [pdf, 373 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 133 ACR 195/18 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN JEROME LARASON Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 21 July 2021 Heard at: Christchurch/Otautahi Appearances: Ms K Coulston for the appellant Mr C Light for the respondent...

3. [2021] NZACC 172 – Shaftyat v ACC (5 November 2021) [pdf, 409 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 172 ACR 9/19 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN SOHEL SHAFTYAT Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 23 August 2021 Heard at: Via telephone Appearances: Mr M Darke for the appellant Ms B Johns for the respondent Judgmen...

4. [2023] NZREADT 16 - CAC 1901 v KC (3 July 2023) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...fined her $2,000 ($1,000 for each breach) and ordered her to pay costs of $1,395 to the purchasers. [6] The liability decision of the Committee was upheld by the Tribunal (differently constituted from the current panel) on [date]. It left open an appeal by the purchasers and a cross-appeal by the defendant against the Committee’s penalty orders. This was because the Tribunal referred back to the Committee consideration of whether misconduct charges should have been brought agains...

5. Parish v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover and Entitlement to Surgery) [2024] NZACC 101 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 276 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 101 ACAR 094/23 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN QUINTON PARISH Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 27 March 2024 Heard at: Christchurch/Ōtautahi Appearances: The appellant in person supported by his wife Mr D Russ for the respondent S...

6. Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 106 (25 June 2024) [pdf, 209 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2024] NZACC 106 ACAR 251/23 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN DAVID JONES Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 17 June 2024 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: B Hinchcliff for the Appellant F Becroft for the Accident Co...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 75 Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand v New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...available on call within ten minutes if required. Interim injunction principles [25] The principles to apply to this application are not disputed. They were authoritatively stated in NZ Tax Refunds Ltd v Brooks Homes Ltd where the Court of Appeal said:5 The approach to an application for an interim injunction is well established. The applicant must first establish that there is a serious question to be tried or, put another way, that the claim is not vexatious or frivolous....

8. NZLS Predictions in an Uncertain World [pdf, 957 KB]

   ...Minister’s Chief Advisor) p 5. (www.pmsca.org.nz) 8 Section 5(2)(c) RMA. 9 Section 31(1). 10 There is a difference in the wording of the functions about natural hazards of territorial authorities and regional councils. However the Court of Appeal said early on that the difference is immaterial: Canterbury Regional Council v Banks Peninsula District Council [1995] 3 NZLR 189 at 195. Judge Jackson  Predictions in an Uncertain World – assessing effects under the Resource M...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 72 Jansen Limited v Tree costs [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...that a nominal award should be made. I regret the delay in dealing with the matter but the Court file had been overlooked. [2] Both counsel accepted the categories in respect of which indemnity costs may be ordered as set out by the Court of Appeal in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation. 1 Noting specifically that the categories were not closed, the Court listed the following circumstances in which indemnity costs had been awarded: 2 (a) the making of allegations of fraud k...

10. Tangitau v Hakaoro [2015] NZIACDT 52 (14 May 2015) [pdf, 165 KB]

    ...lodged the agreement, [2.2] Failed to deal with Immigration New Zealand’s proper inquiries, [2.3] Failed to tell his client Immigration New Zealand declined her application, due to the lack of response to the inquiries, [2.4] He then lodged an appeal without instructions, and [2.5] Failed to report to his client when this Tribunal cancelled his licence. [3] The Tribunal upheld the complaint. Mr Hakaoro: [3.1] Breached clauses 1.5(a), (b), and (d) and also 8(d) of the 2010 Code....