Search Results

1. RI v Hart LCRO 158 / 2011 (13 July 2012) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...In conjunction with the adjournment, consent was again sought from Mr Hart to the matter being dealt with on the papers as I considered all material necessary to complete the review was available on the files. [11] On 20 April 2012, a follow-up request was sent to Mr Hart. No reply was received and thereafter, the Case Manager had extreme difficulty in obtaining a response from him. On 8 May 2012, I therefore issued a Minute which included the following: [8] Given the difficulty...

2. [2007] NZEmpC WC 32A/07 Port of Napier Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...responses, PONL launched these proceedings fearing that a picket would be mounted on Monday 10 December or thereabouts. [12] When counsel met with me by telephone conference call to deal with the litigation and an early hearing of the plaintiff’s claims, MUNZ undertook that no such action would be taken by it pending the decision of the Court. Claim against RMTU and individual employees and interim relief sought [13] The statement of claim against the defendants in this proceedi...

3. BORA Aquaculture Reform Bill [pdf, 458 KB]

   ...are able to receive the benefit of the allocation raises issues of intra- ground discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. The issue of discrimination between iwi was also discussed in the context of the Māori Fisheries Bill. On that occasion, we formed the provisional view that individual iwi did not have their own ethnic identity. While we remain of this view, we consider that only coastal iwi have a recognisable customary interest in coastal marine farming. Inland iwi are not in a co...

4. Waitangi Tribunal - Ngāti Kahu Remedies Report [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   T H E N G Ā T I K A H U R E M E D I E S R E P O R T Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz t h e N g ā t i K a h u R e m e d i e s R e p o r t W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3 W A I 4 5 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.gov

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

   ...the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involves the LCRO 1 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 2 coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination. [4] In rea...

6. Tapu te Wao v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2024] NZACC 137 (16 August 2024) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...Hearing: 15 August 2024 Held at: Hamilton/Kirikiriroa Appearances: L Findlater for the Appellant F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 16 August 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for treatment injury – ss 32-33, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 21 April 2023. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of...

7. JM v DTM [2011] NZIACDT 1 (19 January 2011) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...also for the purposes of this decision. [14] I have considered the response in full. [15] Key aspects of the response to the minute presented by SN were that SN is said to have been a “Non-Advising Principal”. Further: [15.1] SNJ had not requested payment of $4,837.50, only $2,868.75. The calculation of $4,837.50 was for the purposes of illustration only. The fee was reasonable, including on a comparative basis. [15.2] The Complainant falsely stated that the work was pro bono,...

8. O'Hagan v Police (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 614 KB]

   ...these proceedings Mr O’Hagan alleged the Police did not respond to his IPP 6 request within the 20 working day timeframe allowed by the Privacy Act 1993 (PA), s 40. The Police have always admitted this breach and made apology when providing the requested information 18 days outside the 20 working day limit. In the decision delivered by the Tribunal as O’Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22 at [45] the Tribunal held that this apology was genuine. [2] Mr O’Hagan sought the maximum sum o...

9. BU v SI Ltd [2015] NZDT 1460 (10 September 2015) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...in this claim were innocent victims, and I note that the Land Rover only had third party insurance, so SI Ltd has had to bear the loss of its own vehicle. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 10 September 2015 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available or a mistake was made. If you wish to apply...

10. NP v KM 2 [2023] NZDT 340 (20 June 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...saddle (as set out in paragraph 19 below). Background 1. The adjournment order dated 8 March 2023 sets out the background to the dispute. 2. Pursuant to that order, NP returned the saddle to KM, and KM had it assessed by BN. 3. KM informed the Tribunal that, on the basis of BN’s findings, she did not agree to refund the purchase price to NP. A second hearing took place by phone on 2 June 2023. Findings 4. It is not disputed that KM’s Facebook Marketplace listi...