Search Results

1. Fehling v New Zealand Post (Lifting of Stay) [2013] NZHRRT 43 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...the proceedings before the Tribunal now be progressed to a hearing. [3] Dr Butler has raised the following additional issues: [3.1] At present the named defendant is the Chief Executive of NZ Post. Mr Fehling has by letter dated 12 January 2013 requested that New Zealand Post be added as a second defendant. NZ Post does not object to joinder but submits that it should be the only proper defendant. Specifically the Chief Executive of NZ Post should be removed as a defendant because t...

2. 2017 NZSSAA 012 (5 April 2017) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...decided to recover the debt, we consider it would be unjust if the 3 appellant cannot dispute the establishment of the debt, if he faces recovery of the debt. [9] The appellant made his decision not to appeal when he could rely on the former regime relating to recovery; the Chief Executive now says he must face a different regime. It would be unfair not to allow the appellant to pursue all of his remedies in what the Chief Executive says are different statutory circumsta...

3. Rameka - Papamoa 2 Sec 2B3C3B1 [2016] Chief Judge's MB 457 (2016 CJ 457) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...certificate, dated 1 March 2010, advising that he has “profound hearing loss in both ears” and has “difficulty communicating”. He has also provided a 1999 audiologist report stating that he will be provided with a hearing aid. While this information speaks to the applicant’s hearing disability it does not confirm that the applicant did not understand what he was doing when he agreed to the transfer of shares at the 2005 hearing. [12] Further, the Court record shows tha...

4. [2016] NZSSAA 047 (24 May 2016) [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...Howell who lodged an appeal by email on 9 December 2015. The notice recorded that neither the appellant nor her advocate attended the hearing of the Benefits Review Committee “despite our forewarning of the BRC of this”. Mr Howell noted that a request had been made to the Ministry on 14 October that the hearing be “voided” and a new hearing set up. He said that request had not been responded to. Mr Howell also recorded that he had emailed indicating the need for reasons why th...

5. LCRO 100-2014 XO v QY decision date [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Privacy Act 1993 but took no further action in that regard. [7] Mr XO also lodged a claim against the executors with the Disputes Tribunal, but the Tribunal declined jurisdiction. [8] Mr XO has now received payment of his legacy. There is no information about whether or not he complied with Mr QY’s requirements, but that has no relevance to this review. Mr XO’s complaints [9] Mr XO’s complaints were:1 a) Mr QY made false and misleading statements to an official inve...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 179 TPT Forests Ltd v Penfold [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...2016 provide the basis for a search order and the criteria that the Court must consider and be persuaded of to make such orders. [5] TPT claims that the respondents have breached their contractual obligations by unlawfully accessing confidential information; retaining TPT’s property (in particular confidential information and/or intellectual property); disclosing confidential information to third parties; and deleting and/or destroying TPT’s property (in particular its intellect...

7. [2023] NZEmpC 53 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...proceedings, counsel for the Authority filed an appearance abiding the decision of the Court in respect of Mr Halse’s application for judicial review, reserving its position on the question of costs should any person seek costs against it, and requesting that it be served with copies of all documents filed. It reserved its rights in the event that another person became a party to the proceedings or a party took a step in the proceedings that was against its interests. [5] I mad...

8. [2021] NZACC 157 – Sohail v ACC (7 October 2021) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...[7] These payments were stopped in May 2005. The Corporation had sought Mr Sohail’s driver’s taxi log which was not forthcoming. He moved to Sydney in 2007. [8] After his return, in June 2008 Mr Sohail’s counsel wrote to the Corporation requesting that it investigate his entitlement to weekly compensation. In September 2009, after unreasonable delay on the part of the Corporation, it issued a decision accepting that Mr Sohail was incapacitated from 13 May 2005, and in a furth...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 175 Zant v Central Hawke's Bay District Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...abilities to prepare evidence given the uncertainty surrounding our appeal. We have not, and can not [reasonably] proceed to prepare our total evidence package for our appeal until the Court settles this challenge by the respondent. By allowing Form 38, and accepting the attached form 7 as a new application for appeal, the Court can clarify this whole anomaly of the respondent’s scope challenge. The original appeal could then be removed, and therewith replaced. This will allow both...

10. Gemmell v Gemmell - Mohaka A4 Trust (2014) 32 Takitimu MB 63 (32 TKT 63) [pdf, 204 KB]

    ...the District Court entered judgment against Sam Gemmell for $18,248.65 being the loan plus interest and costs. [4] Then on 11 December 2009 the trustees of the Tauwhareroa Trust and the Mohaka A4 Trust entered into a deed confirming that the former owes the latter $4,690.00. Sam Gemmell now disagrees with that figure and says that, following the presentation of evidence from accountants at hearings held before this and the District Court, it has emerged that the Tauwhareroa Trust...