Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 157 Johnston v The Fletcher Construction Co Ltd [pdf, 375 KB]

   ...Authority) to the Court for hearing; (b) a parallel application for leave to extend the time to challenge under s 179 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) against a determination of the Authority declining to remove Mr Johnston’s claim to the Court;1 and (c) an application advanced by The Fletcher Construction Co Ltd (Fletcher Construction/the respondent) to strike out the application for special leave on the basis that the Court has no jurisdiction to deal with it...

2. W v H [2015] NZIACDT 80 (10 August 2015) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...was engaged as the exact timing of the alleged phone call is not known; in the circumstances it is irrelevant as both clauses required the adviser to be professional, diligent and respectful (clause 1 of the 2014 code also requires honesty); and perform his services in that manner. The circumstances were: [6.2.1] The adviser swore at his client during a phone conversation and threatened to knock him down. [6.2.2] He threatened in an email to refer his client to the police, and said the...

3. Juan v Ramos [2015] NZIACDT 48 (07 May 2015) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...Ramos’s response to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns did not provide any comments to the concerns Immigration New Zealand expressed regarding the bona fides of the complainant and his family. [7.6] The complainant subsequently engaged Ms Ramos to request a work visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009. That section provides for the grant of visas is special cases where the applicant is unlawfully in New Zealand, as was the case here. On 30 October 2012, Ms Ramos wrote to I...

4. Koyama v New Zealand Law Society (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...In a decision given on 28 May 2013 the Tribunal awarded the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) costs in the sum of $8,000. [2] On 7 June 2013 Mr Koyama filed submissions opposing the NZLS costs application. Those submissions amount, in effect, to a request that the Tribunal recall its decision. Three grounds are advanced: 2 [2.1] The Tribunal decision of 28 May 2013 was given prior to the expiry of a 7 June 2013 deadline set by the Tribunal for the filing by Mr Koyama of his submis...

5. OT v PI LCRO 101 / 2011 (20 August 2012) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...supplied to him by BAJ indicated some discrepancies in that regard. [5] The Standards Committee resolved to take no further action in respect of Mr OT’s complaint on the grounds that Mr PI had acted in good faith and provided an opinion based on information presented to him. It also noted that at the time of the complaint Mr PI had withdrawn his opinion. [6] Mr OT sought a review of that decision by this Office.1 The LCRO agreed with the Standards Committee that there had not be...

6. Morris - Pani Te Wairemana Morris Succession [2016] Chief Judges MB 792 (2016 CJ 792) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...presentation of the facts of the case to the Court or the Registrar. The Chief Judge may also make such other orders as, in the opinion of the Chief Judge, is necessary in the interests of justice to remedy the mistake or omission. [8] The applicant has requested that the Chief Judge amend the order that is the subject of this application. In terms of Tau v Nga Whanau O Morven & Glenavy – Waihao 903 Section IX Block 2 and Ashwell – Rawinia or Lavinia Ashwell (nee Russell)...

7. Myhre - Ngapaeruru No 1B No 2C No 2 (2019) 73 Tākitimu MB 176 (73 TKT 176) [pdf, 340 KB]

   ...election at a meeting of owners is a useful means of obtaining such evidence. [19] I adopt the reasoning set out in that decision. Discussion Do the proposed trustees have the necessary abilities, experience and knowledge? [20] The consent form for Mr Eriha does not list any relevant skills or qualifications for assessing his suitability as a trustee. As Mr Eriha did not provide a response to any of Ms Clarkson’s allegations and did not file anything in writing, it is difficul...

8. Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Crampton [2015] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...proving one of the exceptions in Principle 11, the Tribunal must then determine whether the disclosure constituted an interference with the individual’s privacy as defined in s 66 of the Privacy Act. That is, has the plaintiff established one of the forms of actual or potential harm contemplated by [s 66(1)]. The burden of proof reverts to the plaintiff at this stage. [190.4] Fourth, if the Tribunal is satisfied to this stage, then its final task is to determine whether, in its disc...

9. [2017] NZEnvC 047 North Eastern Investments Limited & Heritage Lands Limited v Auckland Transport [pdf, 477 KB]

   ...necessary for Mr Maassen to attend at least part of the hearing because of the interrelationship of the NOR with the Land Use consent and the imminent hearing of the appeal relating to that consent. He reminded 12 the Court that on 23 February it requested Mr Maassen to attend Court on the following day. [51] Auckland Transport's contention is that if there is to be an award, NEIL's indemnity cost claim of $605,000 should be reduced by $105,000 to a starting point of...

10. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...made; this, as an alternative to the directions proceedings. [28] As the executor Mr SY was reluctant to make a distribution on that basis. He considered that the appropriate course was directions proceedings. However, he was awaiting updated information from LE about TY’s wider family members still then living. [29] Partial distributions from TY’s estate were made during this time to the four beneficiaries. 4 [30] Mr SY retained approximately $300,000 from the estate in r...