Search Results

1. LCRO 53/2023 PN v QZ (26 October 2023) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...death, Mr RB had been married to Ms PN for about four years. [5] Mr RB had owned two properties, one at [Address 1] and the other at [Address 2]. 2 [6] In setting out my understanding of the course of relevant events below, I record that the file material provided by the Firm to the Committee has not been easy to follow. The file material is not in date order, most attachments to email correspondence have not been copied to the file and the few file notes are undated, abbreviated a...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 198 Head v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 388 KB]

   ...46. [107] We have carefully assessed the monthly invoices which were rendered to IR, in light of the steps that were being taken on behalf of IR at the various stages of the case as it progressed to hearing. We are satisfied that the fees rendered were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. On a conventional basis, two-thirds of actual costs, net of GST, produces a starting point of $185,254. [108] That, however, is not the end of the exercise. It is appropriate to...

3. Brooking v Andrews - Waipapa 9 and Others (2022) 273 Waiarki MB 35 (2022 WAR 35) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...C T COXHEAD Judgment of Judge C T Coxhead 8 Apireira 2022 273 Waiariki MB 36 Hei tīmatanga kōrero Introduction [1] The trustees and general manager of Waipapa 9 Trust (“the applicants”) filed this application pursuant to s 79 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) seeking an order for costs against Matthew Lawrence Andrews totalling $49,630.39. [2] The costs sought are in relation to proceedings which I conclud...

4. Kake - Estate of Aldyth Kake (2020) 209 Taitokerau MB 134 (209 TTK 134) [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...- Introduction [1] Ngutana and Aldyth Kake built a house on Maruata 10H2 where they lived until their deaths. A dispute has now arisen between Ngutana’s children over the ownership and occupation of the house. Five applications have been filed seeking orders to: (a) Determine ownership of the house; (b) Succeed to Aldyth; (c) Cancel or amend the occupation order concerning the house; and (d) Cross application seeking injunctive relief. [2] This decision determines these ap...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 3 v Ms W [2023] NZLCDT 35 (17 August 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...we reject in the first charge is the allegation that she breached an undertaking.6 In the course of the High Court proceedings, the practitioner drafted a memorandum of consent to timetable orders that expressed her obligation to comply with a filing date as an undertaking. We find that the use of the term “undertakes” did not, read in context, impose on her a solemn duty to the court beyond the ordinary terms of a timetable order. We find she was not subject to an undertaking...

6. [2006] NZEmpC AC 55/06 Downey v NZ Greyhound Racing Assoc Inc [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...[17] So far as taxation is concerned, GST is excluded from the quantum for remuneration provided. As Mr Downey was apparently required to be registered for GST purposes he was entitled to, and indeed did, submit GST invoices, adding GST to his fees for services provided. There was also evidence that on a regular basis he filed GST returns. He was to be liable for all his tax liabilities and indemnify Greyhound Racing not only for such liabilities but other liabilities arising out o...

7. Edwards v ACC [2013] NZACA 10 [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...should have been made under s 121(2)(b) of the Accident Compensation Act 1972. Counsel were given the opportunity after the hearing to make further submissions in relation to s 121(2)(b), 2 but elected to rely on the submissions already filed in respect of s 80. The only significant difference is that the requirement under s 80(2)(b) is that the expense or loss claimed must be “identifiable and reasonable”, as opposed to “identifiable actual and reasonable” under s 121...

8. [2011] NZEmpC 51 Health and Body Clinic Ltd Ors v Zhao [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...and on behalf of the third plaintiff No appearance for the defendant Judgment: 23 May 2011 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] Mr Murray Arnesen and Mrs Lynette Arnesen, the second and third plaintiffs in this proceeding, have filed a challenge against a costs determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority dated 19 November 2010. [2] They were not originally parties before the Authority in these proceedings, which alleged a personal grievance by the defend...

9. [2009] NZEmpC AC 26/09 Merchant v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...Judgment: 25 June 2009 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] I gave my substantive judgment in this matter on 17 December 2008. I concluded by encouraging the parties to agree costs if possible or, if they were unable to do so, directed that they file memoranda. They have now filed memoranda. [2] Clause 19(1) of Schedule 3 to the Employment Relations Act 2000 confers on the Court a broad discretion to make orders as to costs but, as with all such discretions, it must be exerci...

10. Te Hiwi v Tahamata Incorporation (2005) 148 Aotea MB 265 (148 AOT 265) [pdf, 606 KB]

    ...Incorporation Section 280, Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 John Te Hiwi, in person Mr E A Macdonald for the Tahamata Incorporation 2 December 2003, 16 March 2004 RESERVED DECISION On 2 September 2003 John Te Hiwi ("the Applicant") filed an application pursuant to section 280 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act ("the Act") for an investigation into the affairs of an incorporation called Tahamata ("the Incorporation"). The principal ground for seeking an investi...