Search Results

1. Fa'asavala v Letalu [2014] NZIACDT 91 (17 September 2014) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...persisted. [2.3] He then lodged an appeal out of time and he did not refund the filing fee to the complainant. [3] The Tribunal found Mr Letalu was incompetent, he did not commence his engagement in accordance with the Code of Conduct 2010 (breaching clause 1.5), he breached the Code’s provision relating to vexatious or grossly unfounded applications (clause 2.2), and he also breached the obligation to refund fees (clause 3(d) of the Code). [4] The full circumstances are set out in...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 111 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...terms implied by operation of law or incorporated by statute were part of the agreement. 5 [12] Richmond had three particular policies that were relied on in this proceeding. They are: 4 Clauses 7.3 and 7.4. 5 Clause 26. a) A Privacy of Consumer Information Policy, which reflected the expectations of the Health Information Privacy Code 1994 (the HIPC). Included in the policy is the following important statement:...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 28 Stevens v Hapag-Lloyd (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...disestablished on 31 March and that her position would therefore be “subject to redundancy”. She went on to say: I seek confirmation that I am entitled to a severance payment … as per the terms and conditions of my employment contract, clause 7-A. As this has a significant impact on my employment I require a response by close of business today. (emphasis added) [14] The next email was sent at 8.56 am, seeking confirmation that the Import Manager role and one Import Coor...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 39 ALA v ITE [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...organisation. The timeframe for compliance is immediate. [9] Since the order referred to the confidentiality obligations of the settlement agreement, it is appropriate to set out these which were referred to by the Court; these were as follows: 8 Clause 1 These terms of settlement and the fact that a settlement has been reached and all matters discussed on a without prejudice basis at the meeting between the parties … shall remain, as far as the law allows, or [the defenda...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 017 Aarts v Waikato District Council [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   Aarts v Waikato District Council IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TĀMAKI MAKAURAU IN THE MATTER OF BETWEEN AND Decision [2024] NZEnvC 017 an appeal under clause 14 of Schedule 1 to the Resource Management Act 1991 AARTS (ENV-2022-AKL-000041) Appellant WAIKATO DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge S M Tepania sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Last case event: 2 February 2024 Date of Order: 19 February 20...

6. [2022] NZREADT 1 - DU v Real Estate Agents Authority & DC (1 February 2022) [pdf, 333 KB]

   ...and let him know the result. [27] The appellant increased his unconditional offer to $950,000 on 18 December 2019. The licensee informed the vendor by email on the same day. He said he had inserted into the formal offer an ‘as is where is’ clause, so there would be no recourse. The licensee recorded that the appellant was happy to leave it on the table. 10 Bundle at 295. 11 The copy provided to Tribunal is unsigned (Bundle at 381–399). 12 Bundle at 376. 13 Bundle a...

7. Freedom Camping (Infringement Offences and Other Matters) Amendment Bill [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...to this right, a fundamental principle of criminal law, the legal burden of proving every element of an offence to the required standard of proof, and the onus for disproving any potentially available defence, must remain on the prosecution. 21. Clause 12 of the Bill creates new strict liability infringement offences in respect of contravening proposed new ss 1 OA, 15A, 19B and l 9F by freedom camping in a local authority area, on conservation land, on Crown-managed land or on NZT A manag...

8. LT Ltd v ON & NN [2022] NZDT 137 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 142 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 137 APPLICANT EB APPLICANT LT Ltd RESPONDENT ON SECOND RESPONDENT NN The Tribunal orders: 1. EB has been removed as an Applicant in this claim. 2. ON and NN are to pay $200.00 to LT Ltd before 15 August 2022. Reasons. 1. EB has been removed as an Applicant in this claim at her request, as the contr

9. Legal Aid Practice note - November 2022 [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...for Review ................................................................................................................. 4 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 Applications .............................................................................................................................. 5 Late applications ......................................................................................

10. LAT - Practice note - 2022 [pdf, 270 KB]

    ...for Review ................................................................................................................. 4 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 Applications .............................................................................................................................. 5 Late applications ......................................................................................