Search Results

1. OIA-106597.pdf [pdf, 899 KB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 0800 268 787 | contactus@justice.govt.nz justice.govt.nz Our ref: 106597 8 September 2023 Tēnā koe Request for information regarding post mortems Thank you for your request of 4 August 2023 to the Ministry of Justice (the Ministry), seeking the number of post-mortems performed, categorised by their type and the ethnicity of the deceased. We are responding to your request under the Official Information Act 198...

2. SN v J Ltd & T Ltd [2023] NZDT 606 (15 November 2023) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...Ltd is dismissed. The claim by SN against T Ltd is dismissed. The claim by SN against IT is struck out because IT was not served with the claim. Reasons: 1. In or about August 2022, J Ltd listed its [vehicle] for sale on [the online platform]. On or about 29 August 2022, SN confirmed the purchase of [vehicle] for $37,000.00, by using [the online platform]. 2. Between 29 August 2022 and 5 September 2022 there were some brief messages between SN and IT on behalf of J Ltd. T...

3. Y Ltd v DT & KG [2024] NZDT 886 (17 December 2024) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...another person to suffer loss. DT and KG were granted rights to occupy units at MM Ltd Lodge, and therefore owe a duty of care regarding their surroundings; b. when parties enter into agreements contract law requires that those parties perform the promises they make to each other unless there is a valid legal reason not to. 9. I find damage to two units at MM Ltd Lodge was caused by DT and KG, and/or the dogs with them. 10. I say that because I am satisfied the evid...

4. NZ Private Prosecution Service Ltd v Key (Strike-Out Application) [2015] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...affidavit sworn on 9 June 2015 Mr McCready deposed that on 29 April 2015, at a time when NZPPSL was endeavouring to persuade the District Court to accept the private prosecution brought by NZPPSL against the defendant, he had contacted Unite Union requesting Ms Bailey’s contact details but had been refused. He had subsequently served Ms Bailey with all documents filed in the Tribunal by emailing them to Unite Union. There had been no response with the result Mr McCready was unsure whe...

5. FIANZ-Submission.pdf [pdf, 13 MB]

   ...Five Eyes partners or Facebook on this matter and as such many questions remained unanswered. The Five Eyes partners have superior cyber tracking and search capabilities which were not used in this case. To our knowl- edge Facebook was also not requested to provide information. The Coroner can seek responses to answer the questions. 14 https://christchurchattack.royalcommission.nz/the-report/part-6-what-public-sector-agencies-knew-about-the-terrorist/did-public-sector-agencies-...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 144 Jerard v Wildbore [pdf, 63 KB]

   ...Pullar said that Ms Jerard had entirely failed to communicate with him or Mr Wildbore from the time the personal grievance was raised in March 2012 until the statement of claim in this proceeding was served. This included a failure to respond to requests for wage and time records which Ms Jerard had a statutory obligation to provide. Mr Pullar also said that Mr Jerard had twice failed to attend mediation arranged through the Department of Labour. [8] In addition to requesting th...

7. LA - Part 2 - Areas of Law Waitangi Tribunal [pdf, 777 KB]

   ...for each area or category. Case examples should be cases where you played a substantial and active role. Examples need to demonstrate substantial and active involvement across the range of cases. Please complete the Waitangi Tribunal Case Examples Form. You must provide the following case examples: • Provide at least three examples of substantial Waitangi Tribunal proceedings. • Each example must demonstrate that you had a substantial and active involvement in the case. • all...

8. DY v WB LCRO 27 / 2010 (12 July 2011) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...decision in respect of a complaint by the applicant against the respondent. Its decision was to take no further action in respect of the complaint pursuant to s138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. [2] At the end of that decision, information was provided as to the entitlement of the parties to apply for a review of that decision by this Office. [3] Included in that information was the following statement: ENTITLEMENT TO REVIEW BY LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER (LCRO)...

9. Mohi v Janson - Rotopounamu 2B3A (2009) 204 Napier MB 257 (204 NA 257) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...204 Napier MS 258 applicants in this matter) two weeks to respond. It was at this hearing that serious doubts were raised by the Court as to the merits ofthe Jansons' application. [5] The Jansons then, by letter dated 14 October 2008, requested the application be dismissed upon the grounds that they were unable to establish whether the land was alienated from the Crown, which is required in order to show that the land may be general land. A further ground for dismissal was...

10. [2016] NZSSAA 034 (28 April 2016) [pdf, 34 KB]

    ...is fully aware of the decision process. [7] Following receipt of the submission from the Authority the Chief Executive’s response was referred to the appellant’s advocate and further information was sought about the matter. An explanation was requested as to why there was no follow up on the Benefits Review Committee decision before February 2015 and a submission about the prospects of success requested. [8] In a response dated 25 September 2015 Mr Ellis has advised that:...