Search Results

1. Nisha v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 26 (5 September 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...return. A courier acknowledgement or receipt from a person uplifting reflects standard practice for the return of important documents. The Adviser has not provided an adequate explanation. I am satisfied the explanation is negligent laxness and want of care in document management in the Adviser’s office, and she is responsible for that. [33] In all the circumstances, I am satisfied compensation of $2,100 (NZ$) is appropriate to recognise the significant inconvenience and trouble to wh...

2. KJ v WN LCRO 46 / 2011 (13 April 2012) [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...refusal to meet her invoices; the Practitioner had not upheld her right to be treated according to the LSA policy. [20] The essence of this complaint appears to be based on the Applicant’s perception that the Practitioner had an obligation to protect her against any potential breaches by the LSA of its own policies. This cannot be right. It is the responsibility of the LSA to act in accordance with its policies. I can see no basis for holding the Practitioner responsible for...

3. BORA Limitation Bill [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...commented (at [51]): “It is noteworthy that limitation periods in personal injury cases are a common feature of the domestic legal systems of the Contracting States. They serve several important purposes, namely to ensure legal certainty and finality, protect potential defendants from stale claims which might be difficult to counter and prevent the injustice which might arise if courts were required to decide upon events which took place in the distant past on the basis of evidence...

4. BORA Public Transport Management Bill [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...standard of the balance of probabilities would be convicted. We consider, therefore, that where the defendant is required to prove something in order to escape liability, the use of strict liability offences is contrary to the presumption of innocence protection contained by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. Strict Liability Offences in the Bill 8 The Bill contains the following strict liability offences: • Clause 46 (operating an unregistered commercial public transport se...

5. Michael Moore – Rebuttal (dated 12 June 2017) [pdf, 6.4 MB]

   ...Point project was an assessment of the effects of subdivision including provision for three houses on a coastal headland feature. I considered the site had high landscape value and sensitivity and that the development proposed did not appropriately protect the natural character and landscape values. In my opinion this site is considerably more sensitive than Porteous Hill because I assess it as being a landscape feature within the coastal environment and because its scale is much...

6. Anonymised [2017] NZREADT 38 [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...U Realty [21] Mr Grove submits that the fine of 50% ($10,000) of the total available fine is excessive. He provided the Tribunal with a number of cases where the party concerned received a lesser fine. The Tribunal have considered these cases carefully. The Tribunal conclude that there is no basis on which to overturn the level of fine. There is no error of law, wrong weighting of evidence nor is it plainly wrong. The fact that the Tribunal may have imposed a slightly lower fine do...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 35 Elisara v Alliance New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...instruction; the others were identified as being compliant. He confirms that all documents requested by the plaintiff in relation to the residual 23 claims have been disclosed, whether assessed as relevant or not. Mr Fearnley also confirms that he has carefully reviewed each of the six claim files and has disclosed, with his affidavit, all relevant documentation and correspondence from the claim notification date through to 30 April 2017 (three months after the plaintiff’s...

8. Nabi & Fang v Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 403) & Ors [2016] NZREADT 80 [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...Purchasers often incur these costs to prevent themselves from having to incur greater costs later if the property is found to be defective. [23] The emphasis on penalty decisions in a disciplinary context, is to maintain public standards, and to protect the public against agents and sometimes a penalty also imposes an element of punishment such as a fine. It is the actions of the agent which are the appropriate focus for the CAC. They must determine what penalty best fits the crit...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 58 Kennedy v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...made, will be made following the investigation meeting. Ms Kennedy will have a further opportunity to address the Authority on any application that Oranga Tamariki might make in that regard. [22] In the second minute, Member MacKinnon has made careful directions for the hearing of Ms Kennedy’s evidence and also has allowed for further discussion on additional protections that may be put in place. The directions are appropriate. Costs are reserved [23] If Oranga Tamariki se...

10. [2018] NZSSAA 11 (16 February 2018) [pdf, 208 KB]

    ...attached a copy of the appellant’s claim in the Waitangi Tribunal, XXXX, and a copy of directions issued by the Waitangi Tribunal on 5 December 2017. The directions describe the claim as concerning the failure of the Crown to provide for the health care of Maori in respect of depression and mental illness. [15] Mr Tupara submits that s 12O(1) of the Act allows the Authority to refer the whole or any part of a matter under appeal back to the Chief Executive and award the costs o...