Search Results

1. Chandra v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 082 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...UNDER SECTION 162(1) OF THE ACT BETWEEN NAVIN CHANDRA Applicant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Submissions: The Applicant is self-represented F Becroft for the Corporation Hearing: On the papers Judgment: 16 May 2024 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Leave to appeal to the High Court, s 162 Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Her Honour, Judge Hena...

2. [2009] NZEmpC CC 9/09 Jinkinson v Oceania Gold (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...JINKINSON Plaintiff AND OCEANA GOLD (NZ) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers - submissions received 30 January and 19 February 2009 Appearances: Richard Smith, Counsel for the Plaintiff Lesley Brook, Counsel for the Defendant Judgment: 13 August 2009 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] Ms Jinkinson worked for Oceana Gold (NZ) Limited (Oceana Gold) over a period of 19 months from May 2005 until December 2006. When her employment came to an end, Ms Jinkinson m...

3. Li & Gao v Real Estate Agent Authority (CAC 408) & Riley [2017] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...mitigating factors submitted by Mr Rea justify a substantial reduction in the penalty to be imposed. Are the Supreme Court’s comments in Premium Real Estate Ltd v Stevens an aggravating factor? [36] In his submissions, Mr Akel referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court Premium Real Estate Ltd v Stevens.11 He submitted that the Tribunal should take into account, as an aggravating factor, critical comments made by the Supreme Court about Ms Riley in that judgment.12 In respon...

4. Waitangi Tribunal - East Coast Settlement Report [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   t  h  e    E  a  s  t   C  o  a  s  t    S  e  t  t  l  e  m  e  n  t   R  e  p  o  r  t Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz t �

5. [2019] NZEnvC 110 Western Bay of Plenty District Council v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...landscapes is based on an evaluation system for all the assessment factors listed below. The system is qualitative rather than quantitative and there is no score to become 'outstanding'. This is a complex process requiring the exercise of judgement in a multi-dimensional framework. Outstanding natural features and landscapes can include human modifications (including activities) or otherwise be influenced by cultural associations, whether historical or modern. [27] The next se...

6. Dixon - Succession to Hare Manukau [2021] Chief Judges MB 887 (2021 CJ 887) [pdf, 942 KB]

   ...TAKE In the matter of Succession to Hare Manukau LYNNETTE ROSEMARY DIXON Te Kaitono Applicant Nohoanga: Hearing 26 March 2021, 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 486-525 (Heard at Rotorua via Zoom) Whakataunga: Judgment date 5 July 2021 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ MATUA TUARUA C L FOX Judgment of Deputy Chief Judge C L Fox 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 888 Hei tīmatanga kōrero - Introduction [1] Lyn...

7. Houghton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2024] NZACC 57 [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...stated to be on its face a “certificate of employment” dated 21 February 2022. It is headed “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”, “Andrew Houghton”. It states: I hereby confirm that Andrew was employed by HiTech Fixers Ltd & Plasterboard Lining Services Ltd. Andrew was employed at HiTech Fixers Ltd from 3 September 2009 to May 2011 when his employment moved to Plasterboard Lining Services Ltd until 22 December 2011, his position was full time and permanent. [47] It is signe...

8. LCRO 181/2023 HC v QG and VO (28 February 2025) [pdf, 413 KB]

   ...view on the evidence before her. Nevertheless, as the Guidelines properly recognise, where the review is of the exercise of a discretion, it is appropriate for the Review Officer to exercise some particular caution before substituting his or her own judgment without good reason. [87] The High Court has also described a review by this Office in the following way:17 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 223 MacFarlane Investments Ltd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 490 KB]

   MACFARLANE INVESTMENTS LTD v QLDC – REPORT OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI ŌTAUTAHI Decision No. [2023] NZEnvC 223 IN THE MATTER of the Public Works Act 1981 AND an objection under s23 of the Act BETWEEN MACFARLANE INVESTMENTS LIMITED (ENV-2022-CHC-10) Objector AND QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge P A Steven Environment Commissioner I Buchanan Hearing: at Qu

10. [2007] NZEmpC AC 17/07 Housham v Juken NZ Limited [pdf, 93 KB]

    ...Relations Authority BETWEEN ANTHONY HOUSHAM Plaintiff AND JUKEN NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 22 and 23 March 2007 (Heard at Kaikohe) Appearances: David Fleming, Counsel for Plaintiff Miss PA Swarbrick, Counsel for Defendant Judgment: 5 April 2007 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] The issue for decision in this challenge by hearing de novo from a determination of the Employment Relations Authority dated 6 September 2006 is whether Juken New Z...