Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...out their respective views of the matter. [3] The facts are: a) On 7 July 2014, the plaintiff’s lawyers contacted the defendant’s lawyers asking whether they were authorised to accept service of the plaintiff’s statement of claim. By email of 7 July 2014, counsel for the defendant confirmed that she was so authorised. b) On the same day a letter was sent by signature-required courier from the plaintiff to the defendant, enclosing by way of service the statemen...

2. TEF v Grimshaw [2025] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 398 KB]

   ...[6] On 1 February 2019 during a charter run the plaintiff and Mr Grimshaw had a conversation in which the plaintiff says he offered to get her the BB run in return for sex. The plaintiff says she was upset and unsure how to respond to his request for sex but decided to go along with it as she could not afford to lose her job or work hours. Mr Grimshaw denies offering to get the plaintiff the BB run in exchange for sex in that conversation, he says rather they discussed how a s...

3. Alloa v Ullapool LCRO 159/09 (22 June 2010) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...to her, he would be required to give evidence, and could be summonsed for that purpose. [5] The second letter [letter B] became the subject of the Applicant’s complaint to the New Zealand Law Society. In this letter the Practitioner informed the Applicant that he could face potential liability as a party for the losses claimed by R. The Practitioner enclosed a draft amended statement of claim showing the Applicant and his company named as defendants and suggested he may wa...

4. Samuels v Matauri X Incorporation - Matauri X Incorporation (2007) 120 Whangarei MB 52 (120 WH 52) [pdf, 9.4 MB]

   ...September 2006. However, on 25 August 2006 Ms Afa sought an adjournment of the hearing as a shareholders meeting was scheduled for 14 October 2006. A new hearing date of 19 December 2006 was then allocated, however, that was later also vacated at the request of Ms Afa as it did not suit Mr Samuels. A further hearing date of 14 FebLUary 2007 was later also vacated at the request of Mr Davis, who by the begirming of this year had taken over acting for Mr Samuels. [7] On 6 March 20...

5. Clarken v Carling [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...turn would have directed him to observe the incorrectly executed building work. [107] Mr Probett gave evidence that the approved Plaster Systems detail for the construction of fully clad parapet and handrail walls required a sloping top to be formed and that that detail had been current for 5 years prior to the construction of the Claimants’ dwelling. Mr Probett stated that water is entering the handrail framing through the textured level top surface of the handrail and an incline...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 10 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...course of the hearing of the disclosure challenge on 24 September 2009 I raised with counsel what appeared to me to be the underlying disclosure issue between the parties, which was whether the exercise undertaken by the defendant to change the format of the financial material it held, on what was described as the “SunSystem”, into the 5 CD-ROMs, was undertaken for the purpose of concealing from the plaintiff the true position of the defendant’s financial records. The disclos...

7. Thompson v Love [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...Apron Flashing [14] Mr Love admits that the apron flashing terminated behind the exterior cladding but says that he did not install the apron flashing and that he followed proper construction practice. Mr Love says that the apron flashing forms part of the roof, which was installed by Carter Holt Harvey and that Carter Holt Harvey followed accepted trade practice at the time. Mr Love states that, at the time of construction, the apron flashings were not required to turn up at...

8. Lewis & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 87 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 13 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6451: NICHOLAS ROMILLY LEWIS AND DIANE HERMA LEWIS AND CHRISTOPHER ELLIOT RICHIE – 18 CAPTAIN EDWARD DANIELL DRIVE, NGAIO ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Nicholas and Diane Lewis and Christopher Ritchi...

9. Marshall & McCardle [2011] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

   1 H[2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 5 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6401: COREY MARSHALL AND KAREN MCCARDLE – 32 MASTERTON ROAD, ROTHESAY BAY ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Corey Marshall and Karen McCardle, as the trustees for the Marshall Family Trust, are the owners...

10. LM v RB LCRO 332/2012 (15 June 2016) [pdf, 54 KB]

    ...as for the Standards Committee. 15 [47] I have therefore given consideration as to whether or not this decision should be published. [48] It is the practice of this Office to seek submissions on publication from the parties if the LCRO forms a preliminary view that publication may be in the public interest. Again, and at this stage, it is a matter of discretion. [49] One of the expressed purposes of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act is “to protect the consumers of legal se...