Search Results

1. LCRO 369/2013 WS v AD (29 August 2017) [pdf, 334 KB]

   ...1 Standards Committee decision at [8]. 2 Submissions from U to the Standards Committee (1 August 2013) at [20]. 6 [38] After settlement of the purchase of Unit M on behalf of ZQL, Mr WS instructed Mr AD to issue summary judgment proceedings against Ms B and Mr H, the guarantors of SAL’s loan to DVL. Mr AD advised against issuing the proceedings because of his view that the transaction may not have been arm’s length. [39] In late 2009, the relationship be

2. [2018] NZEmpC 14 Hayashi v SkyCity Management Ltd [pdf, 422 KB]

   KEITH HAYASHI v SKYCITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 14 [9 March 2018] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 14 EMPC 114/2017 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN KEITH HAYASHI Plaintiff AND SKYCITY MANAGEMENT LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 25, 26 and 27 September 2017 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: R M Harrison, counsel for plaintiff K

3. [2012] NZEmpC 97 Doran v Crest Commercial Cleaning Ltd [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...Hearing: 7, 8 & 20 June 2011 (Heard at Nelson & Wellington) Court: Judge A A Couch Judge A D Ford Appearances: Steven Zindel and Heather Mckinnon, counsel for the plaintiff Peter Kiely and Mere King, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 21 June 2012 JUDGMENT OF THE FULL COURT [1] Part 6A of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) came into force on 1 December 2004 1 . Its stated object 2 is to “provide protection to specified categories of emp...

4. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...house is a large one and the defects in construction are extensive and widespread. The house had a market value in 2006 of $810,000. The figures at issue are of course estimates only and in resolving this issue there is an inevitable degree of judgement involved rather than any exact science. [42] I was impressed with the particular care that Mr White took to identify as precisely as possible what the actual costs might be. I accept his figure of $446,713.10. That figure...

5. [2017] NZEnvC 209 Auckland Council v London Pacific Family Trust [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...arises, it may be necessary to refer to the other sections of the plan and the objectives and policies of the plan itself. Interpreting a rule by rigid adherence to the wording of the particular rule itself would not, in our view, be consistent with a judgement of this Court in Rattray or with the requirements of the Interpretation Act. [37] We add that, for subordinate legislation, where examination of the immediate context of the plan leaves some uncertainty, it is also permissible...

6. LCRO 95/2013 GI v JM (28 June 2017) [pdf, 255 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. [29] More recently, the High Court has described a review by this Office in the following way:11 A review by the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determ...

7. [2021] NZACC 33 - McSherry v ACC (10 February 2021) [pdf, 241 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 33 ACR 167/19 ACR 235/19 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN STEVEN McSHERRY Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 9 October 2020 Held at: Christchurch/Otautahi Appearances: Mr McSherry in person Mr I Hunt for the responden

8. [2021] NZACC 101 – OM v ACC (12 July 2021) [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...BETWEEN OM Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 17 May 2021 Heard at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-A-Tara Appearances: Father on behalf of the appellant Mr S Bisley for the respondent2021 Judgment: 12 July 2021 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Causation /Treatment Injury s 32 Accident Compensation Act 2001] _________________________________________...

9. Skipper v Gibson - Ngāti Tawhirikura Hapū Charitable Trust (2025) 498 Aotea MB 148 (498 AOT 148) [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...Respondents Nohoanga: Hearing 19 February 2025 17 December 2024, 497 Aotea MB 113-140 (Heard at Whanganui) Kanohi kitea: Appearances C Hockley for the Applicants L Tuffery-Huria for the Respondents Whakataunga: Judgment date 14 March 2025 TE WHAKATAUNGA A KAIWHAKAWĀ A H C WARREN Judgment of Judge A H C Warren Copies to: C Hockly, Hockly Legal, PO Box 59211, Auckland 2151, cameron@hockly.co.nz L Tuffery Huria...

10. Supervised Contact Quality Practice Framework [pdf, 762 KB]

    ...throughout this document. 8 Service delivery Practice principles All SC should be: • Safe for children and not put them at risk of harm. • Responsive to the child’s age, stage and developmental needs. • Respectful, non-judgemental and empowering for families. Overall, SC aims to provide a safe, supportive environment for a child and non-custodial parent to maintain, build, or rebuild their relationship. SC upholds children’s rights to have a relationship w...