Search Results

1. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 4 [pdf, 234 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2010-100-000112 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 4 BETWEEN ROGER JERZY AND SAMANTHA KAY ZAGORSKI Claimant AND WILKINSON BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent AND ALLIED HOUSE INSPECTIONS LIMITED Second Respondent AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL Third Respondent AND RICHARD ANDREW JOHN WILKINSON Fourth Respondent AND CATHERINE WILKINSON Fifth Respondent AND TIMOTHY JOHN BURCHER Sixth Respondent AND HITEX BUIL

2. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 67 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...Waitangi, Waimate and Mangungu. The report draws on the claimants’ oral testimony, expert evidence, primary written accounts of the events, as well as the large array of scholarly interpretations, previous Waitangi Tribunal reports and court judgments. It sets out in detail how the two texts of the treaty were prepared, what was said at the various hui and the various accounts of the intentions of the parties. In its final chapter, the Tribunal sets out its conclusions as to the...

3. ENV-2016-AKL-000196 Yang & Others v Auckland Council [pdf, 7.7 MB]

   Before the Environment Court In the matter of And In the matter of And In the matter of Between And ENV-2016-AKl the Local Government (Auckland Transitional Provisions) Act 2010 (LGATPA) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) an appeal under s 156(1) of the LGATPA against a decision of the Auckland Council on a recommendation of the Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (Hearings Panel) on the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (Unitary Plan) Proposed Plan

4. [2019] NZEnvC 189 508 Chapel Road Partnership Trust v Auckland Council [pdf, 2.2 MB]

   ...with s 278 of the Act and Rule 11.10 of the District Courts Rules 2014, the Court has the power to correct errors including accidental slips or omissions. Rule 11.10 is set out as follows: 11.10 Correction of accidental slip or omission (1) A judgment or order may be corrected by the court or the Registrar who made it, if it- (a) contains a clerical mistake or an error arising from an accidental slip or omission, whether or not made by an officer of the court; or 3 (b) is d...

5. [2009] NZEmpC WC 17A/09 Idea Services Ltd v Dickson [pdf, 138 KB]

   IDEA SERVICES LTD V DICKSON WN WC 17A/09 11 December 2009 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 17A/09 WRC 31/08 WRC 34/08 WRC 31/08 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN IDEA SERVICES LIMITED Plaintiff AND PHILLIP WILLIAM DICKSON Defendant WRC 34/08 IN THE MATTER OF a matter removed to the Court by the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN PHILLIP WILLIAM DICKSON Plaintiff AND IDEA SERVICES LI

6. [2014] NZEmpC 213 Hixon v Campbell and Ors substantive [pdf, 264 KB]

   DOUGLAS KARL HIXON (LABOUR INSPECTOR) v JUSTIN CAMPBELL NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 213 [17 November 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2014] NZEmpC 213 CRC 2/14 IN THE MATTER OF the referral of a question of law from the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN DOUGLAS KARL HIXON (LABOUR INSPECTOR) First Plaintiff AND MARCIA JOY COLLINS Second Plaintiff AND JUSTIN CAMPBELL First Defendant AND DEAN EGG

7. [2012] NZEmpC 202 Cruickshank v CE of Unitec Institute of Technology [pdf, 446 KB]

   GARRY WAYNE CRUICKSHANK V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNITEC INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 202 [30 November 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 202 ARC 108/09 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN GARRY WAYNE CRUICKSHANK Plaintiff AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF UNITEC INSITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY Defendant Hearing: 3-4 and 6-7 May, 6-7 July 2010, 27 February 2012 And by

8. Speaking about cultural background at sentencing: section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   Speaking about cultural background at sentencing Section 16 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985 Alison Chetwin Tony Waldegrave Kiri Simonsen with Strategic Training and Development Services & The Family Centre Social Policy Research Unit ii First published in November 2000 by the Ministry of Justice PO Box 180 Wellington New Zealand © Crown Copyright ISBN 0-478-20155-9 (Printed) iii Foreword The Criminal Justice Act, which came into force on 1 October 1985, brought about a

9. DV, RL, YS and TB v AR LCRO 316/2013 [pdf, 228 KB]

   DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicants have applied for a review of a decision of the [City] Standards Committee [X] in which the Committee determined to take no further action in respect to their complaints against Mr AW. Background [2] In November 2005, Mr AW received instructions to act for eight shareholders of the DEF Ltd. [3] DEF Ltd, a company formally register

10. LCRO 188/2021 MC v JK and UV (19 August 2022) [pdf, 355 KB]

    LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2022] NZLCRO 093 Ref: LCRO 188/2021 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN P & R MC Applicant AND JK and UV Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction