Search Results

1. LCRO 141/2013 TM v DC (7 June 2017) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...a one-half share in a [service facility] in [city]. 2 [4] Negotiations for the purchase of the business were long and difficult and both parties have commented on the difficulties in getting to the stage where contracts were signed. [5] A deposit of $25,000 was paid to the vendor’s solicitor, but as the date for settlement approached, problems seemed to escalate. [6] Amongst the problems were: (a) the proposed [appointee] withdrew; (b) the vendor would not accept a...

2. LCRO 130/2016 RB v ZB (28 June 2017) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Mr ZB denies this allegation. He says that no one at his office removed anything from the file which was not altered or improperly interfered with. He refers to Mr RB’s enquiry of 21 February that requested Ms TE look into the matter, and to clause 2.3(c) of the Relationship Property Agreement which provides that the shares in [Firm A] are Mr RB’s separate property. In support of Mr ZB’s position, Ms TE states that she “did not remove any file notes from Mr RB’s file or t...

3. E v IAG New Zealand Ltd (No 4) [2022] CEIT-2019-0013 [pdf, 535 KB]

   ............................................................................................................................................. 4 Issues ................................................................................................................................................... 5 THE LAW .................................................................................................................................................. 5 The Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance T...

4. Croon v Māori Trustee - Kekerione 31B (2024) 84 Te Waipounamu MB 224 (84 TWP 224) [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...VALENTINE CROON, VALENTINE CROON JR, MONIQUE CROON, TONI CROON AND SIMONE CROON AS TRUSTEES OF THE ADMIRAL FARM WHĀNAU TRUST Ngā Kaitono Applicants ME And MĀORI TRUSTEE Te Kaiurupare Respondent Nohoanga: Hearing 25 October 2023, 84 Te Waipounamu MB 221-223 (Heard at Waitangi, Chatham Islands) Kanohi kitea: Appearances E Moat for Te Tumu Paeroa Whakataunga: Judgment date 15 February 2024 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ M...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 6 Otago Regional Council - Primary Sector Provisions (Rural) [pdf, 3.3 MB]

   ...in the interim period before a new regional planning framework is in place.4 [3] PC8 and PC1 were developed together and notified at the same time. They were intended to be progressed in combination to ensure an efficient Schedule 1 process.5 The scope of the two plan changes changed over time, with the scope of PC8 on which our decision is based, now being limited to rural discharges. Other matters originally included in PC8 relating to urban discharges will be addressed as p...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 006 Otago Regional Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   ...in the interim period before a new regional planning framework is in place.4 [3] PC8 and PC1 were developed together and notified at the same time. They were intended to be progressed in combination to ensure an efficient Schedule 1 process.5 The scope of the two plan changes changed over time, with the scope of PC8 on which our decision is based, now being limited to rural discharges. Other matters originally included in PC8 relating to urban discharges will be addressed as p...

7. LCRO 12/2025 AO v FA and CY (28 February 2025) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...HCR, which reads: 6 3.1 Registry hours The court’s registries must be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day that is not a court holiday. District Court [28] Rule 5.1B DCR provides as follows: 5.1B When documents filed (1) Subject to subclause (2), and despite any other provision of these rules or any other enactment to the contrary, a document— (a) delivered by hand to a registry of the court under rule 5.1A(2)(a) is filed on the day on which it is accepted for filing by...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 202 Cruickshank v CE of Unitec Institute of Technology [pdf, 446 KB]

   GARRY WAYNE CRUICKSHANK V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNITEC INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 202 [30 November 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 202 ARC 108/09 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN GARRY WAYNE CRUICKSHANK Plaintiff AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNITEC INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Defendant Hearing: 3-4 and 6-7 May, 6-7 July 2010, 27 February 2012 And by

9. Bay of Plenty Regional Council Submissions - 29 November 2017 [pdf, 492 KB]

   BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND IN THE MATTER: AND IN THE MATTER: BETWEEN AND AND of the Resource Management Act 1991 of appeals pursuant to clause 14 of the First Schedule to the Act MOTITI ROHE MOANA TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-000134) NGATI MAKINO HERITAGE TRUST (ENV-2015-AKL-000140) NGATI RANGINUI IWI INCORPORATED SOCIETY (ENV-2015-AKL-000141) Appellants BAY OF PLENTY REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent VARIOUS Section 27 4 Parties OPENING SUBMISSIONS FOR

10. [2008] NZEmpC Maritime Union of NZ Inc and ors v TLNZ Ltd and anor [pdf, 46 KB]

    ...follows in my conclusion that the principles drawn from the Court of Appeal judgments and applicable to conventional inter-parties litigation may not apply, at least with the same force, in cases such as this. [26] The broad discretion given by clause 19 to Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 permits the Court, under the unique regime of employment relations, and this Court’s appreciation of them and their implications, to do justice in costs by taking account of f...