Search Results

1. Director of Proceedings v IDEA Services Ltd [2022] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 690 KB]

   ...General Manager notified the Ministry of Health and Ministry of Social Development of both incidents. 22 DEFENDANT’S INTERNAL POLICIES, AND NATIONAL STANDARDS 95. At the time of the events set out above, the defendant had a “Child Protection and Abuse Policy” (“the Abuse Policy”) in place, which provided a framework for the protection of children and adults, and for the investigation of alleged abuse. The defendant also had the Incident Reporting Policy in plac...

2. [2018] NZEnvC 035 The Wellington Company Ltd v Save Erskine College Trust [pdf, 7.9 MB]

   ...than the HASHAA consent, and that aspects could be imported into the HASHAA consent. Some of the HASHAA conditions might also be able to be "relaxed" if the issue is now better addressed in the s193/195 consent. This analysis will require careful consideration and an understanding of what the final s193/195 conditions are likely to be. Any changes to the HASHAA consent will also require a formal variation to be approved, and the outcome of that separate statutory process cannot...

3. [2021] NZREADT 36 - Lindsay-Penalty (13 July 2021) [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...exercised significantly poor judgment when assessing the required intensity of supervision required to ensure that Ms Johnston’s work was competent and compliant with the Act. [13] He submitted that the obligation under s 50 is a vehicle for consumer protection, by providing a safeguard in the form of experienced licensed agents in place to appropriately manage and supervise salespeople. He submitted that a failure to meet supervision obligations cuts across the consumer-protecti...

4. LCRO 153/2022 YA v CK (16 July 2024) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...as to preserve your rights to a challenge if warranted. [17] At 3:13 pm on 1 March, Ms YA sent the below email to Ms JV: In addition to my earlier email I am advised that any beneficiary has up to 12 months to challenge a Will under the Family Protection Act. Probate was only granted in September 2018 so the 12 months has not expired. I request and direct that the estate not be distributed before this period of time in accordance with the term under the Act and I wish my legal righ...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 114 VXO v Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora [pdf, 329 KB]

   ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE NAME AND IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PLAINTIFF AND ANOTHER PERSON AT [120] AND [130] VXO v HEALTH NEW ZEALAND – TE WHATU ORA (IN RESPECT OF THE FORMER NORTHLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD) [2025] NZEmpC 114 [9 June 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2025] NZEmpC 114 EMPC 114/2023 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment

6. LCRO 160/2017 EH v FP (23 April 2018) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...which allows a Legal Complaints Review Officer (LCRO) to conduct the review on the basis of all information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. [32] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind that nece...

7. Harris v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlement to Surgery) [2022] NZACC 231 [pdf, 310 KB]

   ...[32] Under the heading “CAP Panel Comment”, was this: A traction event to the nerve can occur when the nerve is forcefully stretched by a significant unanticipated force. The median nerve at the wrist and the ulnar nerve at the elbow are both protected and supported by their respective joints and soft tissue. As these joints move, so the nerves also have the capacity to move as part of their normal function. Therefore, even with milder traction forces, symptoms of irritation...

8. Body Corporate 199883 & Ors (Ridgeview Apartments) v Clarke [2010] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 216 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2007-100-000032 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 22 BETWEEN BODY CORPORATE 199883 & OTHERS (RIDGEVIEW APARTMENTS) Claimants AND PETER LAURENCE CLARKE (Being the only remaining respondent) Fourth Respondent Hearing: 17 and 21 June 2010 Appearances: Mr C Leishman for the Claimants Fourth Respondent, Mr Peter Clarke, in person Decision: 25 August 2010 FINAL DETERMINATION Adjudicator: P J Andrew Page | 2 CONTE

9. LCRO 104/2016 and LCRO 192/2016 LP v PR (27 June 2019) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...(Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008; 2. was not instructed to act for him personally or as a Trustee; 3. gave false sworn evidence of meetings with him that did not occur; and 4. in purportedly acting for the Trust, failed to: (i) protect the interests of the Trust by checking the Trust deed to ensure the Trustees complied with it; (ii) report to Mr LP on the progress of the litigation; and (iii) advise the Trustees on their options, in particular that they could min...

10. [2021] NZIACDT 2 - IMH v Marica (4 February 2021) [pdf, 288 KB]

    ...dishonest or misleading conduct. 7 Furthermore, she was entitled to rely on the entry in the immigration consultancy’s client records relating to the visa expiry date. Her failure to double-check the date did not amount to a lack of due care. [38] Counsel advised that Ms Marica accepted there were delays in filing the s 61 request. These were largely out of her control, as explained in her affirmation. It was acknowledged that Ms Marica had failed to obtain the complain...