Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC CC 8/09 Safe Air Ltd v Walker [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...pursued a personal grievance. In its determination dated 22 June 2009 (CA 86/09), the Employment Relations Authority concluded that Mr Walker had been unjustifiably dismissed and, together with other remedies, ordered that he be reinstated to his former position. By a statement of claim filed on 29 June 2009, Safe Air challenged the whole of that determination. [2] Safe Air sought a stay of the order for reinstatement pending a decision of its substantive challenge but that was...

2. [2021] NZACC 62 - Atley v ACC (20 April 2021) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...Able Tech would be able to undertake the repairs the following week and contact him to arrange an appointment time. The Corporation further advised that if Mr Atley did not hear from Able Tech, he could contact them directly. The Corporation informed Mr Atley that the wheelchair and seating assessment had been arranged and the provider would be in contact within three weeks to arrange a suitable appointment time. [17] On 19 February 2019, Able Tech attempted to conduct the repai...

3. Jonas v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 412) and Hartnett [2019] NZREADT 002 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...obligations of the licensee were in the present case which involved possible GST liability, it is necessary to begin with a brief discussion of the effect of GST provisions in this type of transaction. Schedule 2 of the ASP was inserted into the standard form agreement for a purpose. [8] The sale of land is deemed to be a supply of goods within the scope of the Goods and Services Tax Act 1985 (the Act).7 However, where the land supplied is part of the sale of a taxable activity wh...

4. [2021] NZACC 67 - BH v ACC (27 April 2021) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Injury Accident Compensation Corporation 2001] ____________________________________________________________________ [1] The issue on this appeal is whether the decision of the Corporation of 23 May 2017 declining the appellant’s mental injury claim is correct. [2] The claim was made on the basis that the appellant’s psychotic disorder was causally linked to his traumatic brain injury which was sustained in November 2001. Background [3] On 21 November 2001 the appell...

5. Williams v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 118 (17 July 2024) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...July 2024 Held at: Christchurch/Ōtautahi Appearances: P Tucker for the Appellant C Hlavac for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 17 July 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25, 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decisions of a Reviewer dated 5 July 2023. The Reviewer dismissed applications for review of the Cor...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 160 Dr X v a District Health Board [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...considered that the public and potential future clients of the practitioner should be warned about the practitioner. I think this is greatly overstating the danger. I think the unusual situation, the mixed managerial and professional functions performed by the practitioner and the two testimonials I have referred to strongly negative the need to warn the public about the practitioner. [14] In Gravatt v The Coroners Court in Auckland, 7 Whata J observed that: Health professio...

7. Naera v Fenwick - Whakapoungakau 24 Block (2012) 47 Waiariki MB 9 (47 WAR 9) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...3 Pukeroa Oruawhata Trustees v Mitchell - Pukeroa Oruawhata Trust (2006) 11 Waiariki Appellate MB 66 (11 AP 66) 47 Waiariki MB 13 variation. To put the point in context, the Deputy Registrar did in fact field numerous queries, requests for information and details of the meeting procedure beforehand, yet once the notice was issued, few if any enquiries touched on the proposed variations to the trust order. [11] For completeness I note that the Ngäti Rangiteaorere Cl...

8. Tucker v CAC 20006 & Claydon [2012] NZREADT 46 [pdf, 41 KB]

   ...DECISION 1. Preliminary Issue - Disqualification of Mr Denley. [1] Mr Waymouth had raised the issue when he was appointed counsel on 10 July 2012 that he would be objecting to Mr Denley being a member of the Tribunal. Mr Denley is the former father in law of Mr Waymouth. Mr Denley has never met and has no connection with any of the parties. 2 [2] The test for bias is set out in the decision of the Supreme Court in Saxmere Company Ltd v The Wool Board Disestabl

9. CT v XD LCRO 218 / 2010 (10 June 2011) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...suggested by the Respondent that he could expect to receive from XC The Standards Committee [10] The Standards Committee resolved to inquire into the complaint and held a hearing on the papers. It considered all the circumstances of the case and formed the view that any action was unnecessary or inappropriate taking into account the retainer signed by the Applicant and the work carried out by CU/Mr CV. The Committee therefore determined that no further action was necessary pursua...

10. Tan v New Zealand Police (costs) [2017] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 169 KB]

    ...Hickey had concerns about Ms Tan’s trustworthiness. It was further alleged that after Ms Tan resigned from the CCDHB Ms Hickey questioned Ms Ternent on more than one occasion to ascertain where Ms Tan was now employed. The manner in which those requests were made implied Ms Hickey was prepared to telephone the new employer to discuss Ms Hickey’s concerns regarding Ms Tan’s suitability. See the decision at [25]. All of these attacks on the credibility of Mr Woodley and Ms Hickey...