Search Results

1. [2012] NZEmpC 177 Rimene v P J Doherty & Natusch Group Ltd [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...sum of $25,399.13. [7] In an affidavit in support of Mr Rimene’s application for leave to apply out of time, Ms Kay-Anne van Zyl, a law clerk employed by Mr Rimene’s solicitors, deposed: 3. The Applicant indicated to us that he would appeal certain parts of the Determination shortly after it was issued. A Statement of Claim was drafted and instructions were finalised to file at the Employment Court. 4. The Registrar has advised that the Statement of Claim should have...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 129 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...memorandum explaining the situation from its point of view. 13. Any such memoranda must be filed urgently (and in particular by 4pm on Wednesday 29th July 2015) in view of the imminent fixture. [3] On the afternoon of 29 July 2015 the Court of Appeal dismissed the plaintiff’s application for leave to appeal against this Court’s earlier refusal to adjourn the fixture set down to begin on 10 August 2015. 1 In these circumstances, the fixture is set to proceed. [4] Having rec...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 156 Rolling Thunder Motor Company Ltd v Kennedy [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...required to consider an application to strike out the proceeding on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear it. Judgment on that issue was issued on 19 August 2010, with the Court dismissing the application. 3 Thereafter the Court of Appeal considered an application for leave to appeal. In its judgment of 6 December 2010, leave was declined; 4 the Court held it was premature for it to consider the matter until there were factual findings so that it could consider w...

4. CAC 20007 v Marshall [2013] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...written notice of its decision and (a) include in the notice the grounds for the decision, the date on which the suspension takes effect, and the period or duration of the suspension; and (b) specify in the notice the right of the licensee to appeal to the High Court under section 116.” Discussion [7] The pre-requisite to ordering interim suspension is that the licensee has been charged under s.91 (refer s.115(1)(a)). The ground for interim suspension is set out in s.11...

5. Te Rongomau v Nikau - Whangape Parish Lot 23B (2011) 28 Waikato Maniapoto MB 95 (28 WMN 95) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...64 (15 WGAP 64), Vercoe v Vercoe (2004) 10 Waiariki Appellate MB 263 (10 AP 263), Samuels v Matauri X (2009) 7 Taitokerau Appellate MB 216 (7 APWH 216) and Phillips v Trustees of Mohaka A4 Trust (2010) 2010 Maori Appellate Court MB 425 (2010 APPEAL 425). These decisions are authority for the following general principles: a) The Court has a broad discretion in the award of costs; b) Costs follow the event and a successful party should be awarded a reasonable contribution to the...

6. Ms N v REAA & Mr X [pdf, 27 KB]

   ...and Thompson not Ms N’s agency was the agency acting on the transaction. The Tribunal accordingly reverses the decision of the Committee to make orders against Ms N under ss 134 and 135 of the Real Estate Agents Act. [7] The real issue in this appeal is whether or not the disclosure made by Ms N in writing complies with s 136. s 136 of the Act provides: Disclosure of other benefits that licensee stands to gain from transaction 1. A licensee who carries out real estate agency...

7. Cambridge v Whitehaven LCRO 122 / 2009 (4 September 2009) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...triggered. It is clear that clear in that the application must “be lodged with the Legal Complaints Review Officer within 30 working days”. The cases are clear in showing that where the applicable rules set out the manner in which an application for appeal or review is to be brought those rules must be strictly complied with: Inglis Enterprises Ltd v Race Relations Conciliator (1994) 7 PRNZ 404; Dawson v Chief Executive Officer of the Ministry of Social Development [2007] NZCA 94;...

8. Derringer Trust v Upton [pdf, 19 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-101-000044 BETWEEN Derringer Trust – as trustees Stephen John Tubbs and Elizabeth Mary Luisetti Claimants AND James Edward Upton and Susan Patricia Upton First Respondent AND Philip Shefferd Bidwell Second Respondent AND Philip Bidwill Architecture Limited Third Respondent AND Jim Cumming Fourth Respondent AND Lewis & Barrow Ltd Fifth Respondent AND REMOVED Sixth Respo

9. AD v Secretary of Justice 10 October 2017 NZRA 003/2017 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...para 7 of that submission he stated that he did not know what the reasons were for cancelling his approvals. He did not accept that there were any shortcomings he needed to address. [11] He went on to emphasis that he was a good lawyer in trials, appeals and immigration and protection matters. He focused on some of the criticisms made of a named Family Court matter and asserted that the criticism was short sighted and completely unjustified. The applicant set out arguments why the steps...

10. BORA Charities Bill [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...57 and 62, are reasonable for the purposes of section 21. 10. In determining whether these powers are reasonable, we have taken into account the privacy interests of those organisations that are subject to the powers in this Bill. As the Court of Appeal observed in Tranz Rail Ltd v Wellington District Court [2]: Although expectations of privacy may not be as great in the commercial world as they are in the domestic sphere, corporations as well as human beings do have legitimate privacy...