Search Results

1. Tweeddale v Pearson [2010] NZWHT Wellington 4 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...had been divulged at the removal hearing it is likely that they would have been removed at that time. [41] The third and fourth respondents sought an indemnity without any specific basis for the claim. 11 [42] The third respondent filed no evidence at all. [43] The fourth respondent made no mention of design in his evidence. [44] The first and second respondents oppose the application on a number of grounds, the first being that no evidence has been filed in suppo...

2. Te Whata v Paku - Akura Lands Trust [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 55 (2011 APPEAL 55) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...Trust to provide a report on the administration of the Trust and an accounting of rental received and payments made for and on behalf of the Trust. The application was set down for hearing on 19 February 2010 and the Court directed the trustees to file a report addressing the issues raised in Mr Kershaw’s letter of 14 June 2007 and other aspects of the Trust’s activities and financial position. The trustees or their 2011 Maori Appellate Court MB 57 representative were als...

3. AA v ZZ LCRO 156 / 2010 (24 January 2011) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...spent a considerable amount of time with her client and being fully aware that she was a resident at X, would undoubtedly have had at the back of her mind a question concerning competency. [29] I have reviewed all of the information on the file, and given careful consideration to both the Applicant‟s views and that of the Practitioner. I accept that the Applicant holds strong views about L‟s competency but I have seen no evidence on the file that demonstrates that L lacked...

4. [2017] EmpC 156 Coomer v JA McCallum & Son Ltd [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...party. It submitted that the Court should not interfere with the decision. [26] While both parties analysed the Authority’s reasons for making the order, which invites a limited challenge addressing the exercise of discretion, the plaintiff has filed a de novo challenge under s 179(1) of the Act. The Court must make its own decision.11 [27] Mr Coomer’s submissions relied almost exclusively on maintaining he was the successful party and, therefore, no proper basis existed to eith...

5. LCRO 166/2014 RD v TS (4 August 2017) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...reached with the Police whereby the charges were withdrawn on 11 June 2013.1 [7] Mr RD did not return the DVD and when requested to do so by the Police on 7 August 2013 he replied: Sorry i have not got it it went in the rubbish with most of the file my client wanted to see it but he did not you should have asked me weeks ago [8] The matter was followed up by Detective Senior Sergeant TS, the officer in charge of the District Child Protection team who asked for “assurances that it...

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

   ...identity of the licensee not being disclosed, although the facts of the case, other than those which might have led to his identification, were to be published. Was the decision of the Committee erroneous? [19] In the submissions which she filed on behalf of the agency Ms Mok submitted that the correct approach to an appeal of this kind was as follows: 4.2 The Tribunal has previously adopted the approach in Morton-Jones v Real Estate Agents Authority for penalty appeals,11 and r...

7. Template-Comprehensive-Whanau-Trust-Order-Final-Version-30-June-2020.doc [doc, 101 KB]

   ...with provisions made in Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993, the duty has been amended or expressly excluded. Trustee powers 9.8 The Trustees have the powers set out in Schedule 2. Trustee reports to the Court 9.9 If required by the Court, a Trustee must file in the Court a written report and be available to the Court for questioning on any matter relating to the administration of the Trust or to Trustee performance. 10. Meetings General meetings 10.1 The Trustees must call a general meeting of...

8. Twigley v New Zealand Law Society [2023] NZLCDT 28 (18 July 2023) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...this). Unfortunately, Mr Twigley was unable to provide the Tribunal with any clear evidence of when or how he would meet such commitments. Respondent’s evidence and opposition [25] Mr Bohinc, on behalf of the New Zealand Law Society, has filed a lengthy affidavit describing the process adopted by the Practice Approval Committee and the reasons for opposition to Mr Twigley’s application. We have summarised the main points of this opposition in paragraph [2] of this decision...

9. [2019] NZEmpC 113 Genesys Telecommunications Laboratories Ltd v Scott [pdf, 576 KB]

   GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES LIMITED v BRENDON SCOTT [2019] NZEmpC 113 [30 August 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2019] NZEmpC 113 EMPC 274/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a stay of execution BETWEEN GENESYS TELECOMMUNICATIONS LABORATORIES LIMITED

10. [2024] NZEnvC 115 Anderson Branch Creek Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 440 KB]

    ANDERSON BRANCH CREEK LIMITED v QLDC IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2024] NZEnvC 115 IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND an appeal under s120 of the Act BETWEEN ANDERSON BRANCH CREEK LIMITED (ENV-2022-CHC-051) Appellant AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Environment Judge K G Reid – sitting alone under s279 of the Act In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Consent Dete