Search Results

1. FI v TR Ltd [2018] NZDT 1065 (12 April 2018) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...that ramp giving a clearance height of 2.0 metres. He drove up the ramp without incident, parked the van, went shopping, and on his return, while driving towards the down-ramp on level 1, the front roof of the van collided with a steel beam that forms part of the parking building. He enlisted the help of mall security to stop traffic so that he could drive down the up-ramp to be able to exit the building. When TR inspected the damage, it deducted $3000.00 from his credit card bei...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 170 Shalini Ltd v A Labour Inspector [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...supported by affidavits in support and reply from Venu Mohan Reddy Beerapu, who is the sole director and shareholder of Shalini. The notice of opposition is supported by an affidavit from Maria Anne Jordan, a Labour Inspector. The Labour Inspector requests that if a stay is to be granted it be on the condition that Shalini make a payment into Court pending the hearing. The hearing of the challenge is now set down for one day in the Employment Court at Auckland on 24 Febru...

3. 2022-03-02 Minute - PC8 - re conducting PC8 (Urban Provisions) hearing + COVID-19 protocols [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...District of PC8 Part G (Urban provisions). [3] PC8 Parts A and H have settled. In the Minute of 8 December 2021, I expressed a willingness to deal with these two matters on the papers. I advised that I would, however, reserve the ability to request a formal proof hearing once 2 all evidence supporting the agreed changes (in particular, the regulatory evidence) had been received. I also reserved the opportunity to question the provisions at the hearing if required. An evid...

4. [2022] NZACC 14 - Mackley v ACC (26 January 2022) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...extenuating circumstances and that the original review could proceed on its merits. [11] In December 2021, the appellant’s counsel invoiced the respondent $4,158,78. [12] The parties have not agreed as to costs. The joint discontinuance flagged a request by the appellant for costs on a 2B basis in respect of one appeal. [13] The respondent states that the amounts claimed should be under category 1 and time allocation should be A. [14] The appellant’s position is that Distri...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 089 New Zealand Transport Agency - Waka Kotahi [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...3 be located on land owned by TDL. [4] However, the extension of the expressway is not the subject of this matter or any other matter currently before the Court. Application for adjournment [5] TDL filed an application for adjournment, requesting that this matter concerning the proposed roundabout be deferred until such time as it can be heard with the expressway extension project. [6] Counsel for TDL stressed the advantages to this approach from the point of view of an a...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 204 Ling v Super Cuisine Group Ltd [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...challenging the constructive dismissal finding started counting from the date of the substantive determination or from the date of the costs determination. An incorrect assumption was made that it was the latter. [10] That error is regrettable. Information on timeframes for filing is readily available online, and Mr Young could also have sought clarification from the Registry. Knowledge of such matters should be within the basic competence of any representative in this jurisdi...

7. Oranga Tamariki Amendment Bill [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...person is in need of care or protection; c. while the power can be exercised using force, it may only be used “if necessary” for the purpose of exercising the authority; and d. a person exercising this power must, on first entering and, if requested at any subsequent time: (A) produce evidence of identify; and (B) disclose that they are exercising that authority under the principal Act. 18. Additionally, we understand that the following safeguards are also in place: a. some s...

8. Waitangi Tribunal COVID-19 Protection Framework protocol (1 December 2021) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...and mediations. 6. Counsel, parties or other persons who are unable to meet the requirements set out in paragraph 5 above may participate in or observe a hearing or other Tribunal event by telephone conference, audio-visual link (AVL) or another form of videoconferencing, such as Zoom. Any person who needs to participate remotely in a hearing due to the above requirements should contact the Tribunal in advance of the hearing so that the necessary arrangements for remote participation c...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 202 Orora Packaging Ltd v E Tu Inc [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...meaning of the clauses, evidence of intention and negotiations which were not attributable to the parties, and evidence that was not reasonably available to all the parties. Counsel also submitted that to allow the brief in, at least in its current form, would needlessly prolong the proceeding and have an unfairly prejudicial effect on the applicant when its probative value was marginal. Alternatively, Mr Skelton submitted that it contained inadmissible expert opinion (being mater...

10. [2021] NZACC 187 – Taylor v ACC (29 November 2021) [pdf, 163 KB]

    ...attention to the normal practice that unresolved costs issues were dealt with on the papers following written submissions. Mr Leaf advised that he and his client wished to have a hearing to deal with the issue of costs, and Judge Spiller accepted this request and directed a hearing. Mr Leaf and Mr Hlavac duly provided written submissions, as to costs, to the Court. [9] On 23 November 2021, a hearing was held, with Judge Spiller and Mr Hlavac attending by audio-visual link, and M...