Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 48 Bayliss v Solar Bright Ltd [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...four customers referred to in Solar Bright’s lawyer’s letter. They are all customers of Solar Bright. The communications commenced from early September. [110] Mr Bayliss initiated communication with an individual at Queenstown airport by email on 1 September 2016 advising that he had moved on from Solar Bright and wanted the individual’s cell phone so that he could give him a buzz. Further interactions appear to have taken place in December/January. Whilst Mr Bayliss say...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 116 Osborne v Callaghan Innovation [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...making his disclosure to the Chair, Mr Hodgson. What happened? [19] In late July 2018, Mr Osborne approached the General Manager to make what she subsequently characterised as a protected disclosure. On 25 July 2018, he sent her a brief email asking to discuss a text message conversation which seems to have been attached. In the email Mr Osborne confirmed the conversation was authentic and asked her to keep the source of it confidential under Callaghan Innovation’s protected...

3. Proactive-release-of-political-donations-consultation-materials-FINAL.pdf [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...cti ve R ele as e Response ID ANON-VKQE-1UVG-T Submitted to Proposed changes to political donation rules in our electoral law Submitted on 2022-01-17 09:46:46 Have your say Tell us about yourself What is your full name? Name: What is your email address? Email address: Are you providing feedback as an individual or on behalf of an organisation? Individual What is the name of your organisation? Organisation: Disclosure rules and thresholds Do you think the proposed changes to di...

4. Thompson & Ors v CAC 20006 & Adams [2013] NZREADT 65 [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...Keen vendor wants it sold, call me now to commute and take advantage of capital growth". [emphasis added] The Complaint by Mr Adams Wednesday, 9 May 2012 [12] In the evening of Wednesday, 9 May 2012 (at 6.51pm), the complainant sent an email to Barfoot & Thompson's general administration email address “admin@barfoot.co.nz” asserting that Barfoot & Thompson was "knowingly and actively pursuing the sale of [his] property at 244A Blockhouse Bay Rd, all with...

5. LCRO 136/2023 QT v MZ (8 January 2024) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...including provision for TL’s claimed beneficial interest in the property to be purchased on terms to be agreed; (e) referred to the “Memo” and requested a copy of any tenancy agreement and property management agreement; 1 The respondent’s email to Mr PY of 25 January 2023. 3 (f) stated a deadline for either an agreement or a counter-proposal; (g) recorded her instructions to issue proceedings for removal of the trustees and the appointment of a receiver of the Trust if...

6. Dunworth v McLachlan [2010] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...evidence of Igor Arakelian does not provide any reasonable evidence that service was not effected or that Mr Arakelian, or other representatives of DVK had no knowledge of the proceedings. [8] She submitted it would be extraordinary if the 35 emails referred to in the service table and the 12 courier packages were not received by DVK given the fact that the courier deliveries were correctly addressed to the address for service of the company and the emails were sent to the em...

7. TP v RO LCRO 174/2012 (7 November 2014) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...the Settlement Agreement to each of the two law firms that held money was sufficient instruction for each firm to make the payments agreed under the settlement. 2 [4] Mrs TP instructed Ms UM to act for her, and on 13 February 2012 Ms UM emailed Mr RO confirming that the High Court proceeding had settled, and authorising Mr RO to pay out funds to the plaintiffs, Mrs TP’s son and daughter-in-law. Ms UM also authorised [law firm] to pay money out from the funds that they wer...

8. [2013] NZEmpC 240 Fox v Hereworth School Trust Board Second Interlocutory [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...engage in discussion with the Board including going to mediation. The Court has already summarised this issue in the previous interlocutory judgment. Another issue that has arisen concerns the circulation among parents at the school of anonymous emails about Mrs Fox’s situation and the school generally. The Board suspects that Mrs Fox was behind, or at least connected with, the sending of these emails, but she denies this. The case also raises issues about a visit of parents to...

9. [2022] NZIACDT 18 - TQ v Gibson (25 July 2022) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...concerning the application. [10] Ms Gibson bought the Immigration Centre business in January 2021. 3 [11] Immigration NZ sent a “PPI” (potentially prejudicial information) letter concerning the residence application to Ms Gibson by email on 26 February 2021. A number of issues had been identified which it was said could have a negative impact on the application. The deadline to respond was 12 March 2021. [12] Ms Gibson renamed the business Visas for NZ Ltd and a furt...

10. Tully v Yerman [2012] NZIACDT 19 (9 May 2012) [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...requirements. The letter gave notice of the right of appeal to the Residence Review Board, and explained it must be lodged with the Board within 42 days, starting from 14 days after that letter was posted. [10.2] 16 March 2010 Ms Yerman sent an email to Ms Tully, and asked whether she wished to pursue an appeal. [10.3] 17 March 2010 Ms Tully replied to Ms Yerman by email, and said she understood Ms Yerman advised that an appeal should be lodged, but expressed some reservations a...