2844 items matching your search terms
...BETWEEN GRAHAM HOETE AND AUBREY HOETE Applicants AND LIZA FAULKNER Respondent Hearing: On the papers Counsel: Ms K Feint, Counsel for Graham Hoete and Aubrey Hoete Mr M Sharp, Counsel for Liza Faulkner Judgment: 3 May 2017 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE S R CLARK Copies to: Karen Feint, Barrister, Thorndon Chambers, P O Box 1530, Wellington, karen.feint@chambers.co.nz Michael Sharp, Barri...
...[2022] NZACC 245 ACR 177/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN GRAHAM MADOC Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Judgment on the papers. Submissions: P Sara for the Appellant S Arnold for the Respondent Date of Judgment: 9 December 2022 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accide...
...subsequent judicial criticism of that lawyer’s conduct during the hearing – such as in an appeal (or similar) – then it is open for the complainant to make a fresh complaint on the basis of that criticism. [138] The High Court’s judicial review judgement is an example of subsequent proceedings in which criticism of a lawyer could be the basis for a fresh complaint. [139] Alternatively, as Review Officer I could treat the judgment as “fresh evidence” and decide whether to...
...BROADSPECTRUM (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED (FORMERLY TRANSFIELD SERVICES (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 6 June 2017 (Heard at Wellington) Appearances: T Cleary, counsel for plaintiff R Upton, counsel for defendant Judgment: 6 June 2017 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH [1] Jason Nathan is a registered lines mechanic employed by Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Limited (Broadspectrum). [2] Mr Nathan was dismissed by Broadspectrum in August 201...
...TONY SCHICKER Defendant Hearing: 15 April 2019 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Langton, counsel, and L Briffett, advocate for plaintiff No appearance for defendant (the defendant abiding the decision of the Court) Judgment: 18 November 2019 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] This judgment deals with a non-de novo challenge to the Court against determinations of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority), first, refusing to reo...
...(“ML/TF”). In light of these challenges, the analysis within this Study attempts to quantify impacts wherever possible, however, in many cases the analysis relies on adopting a large number of assumptions, applying qualitative feedback and professional judgement. In addition the following caveats apply: A significant representative sample across all impacted industry groups was not possible due to time constraints and low online survey responses; Some entities decline...
...(“ML/TF”). In light of these challenges, the analysis within this Study attempts to quantify impacts wherever possible, however, in many cases the analysis relies on adopting a large number of assumptions, applying qualitative feedback and professional judgement. In addition the following caveats apply: A significant representative sample across all impacted industry groups was not possible due to time constraints and low online survey responses; Some entities decline...
...claim before the Tribunal. 8. QE and TE say that section 17 of the Law Reform Act 1936 means they are entitled to claim against G Ltd as the section allows a person to bring a claim against a second joint tortfeasor even if the person has secured judgment against the first joint tortfeasor (section 17(1)). Section 17 changed the common law position, known as the judgment rule, which had prevented the bringing of a second claim. It should be noted though that the section goes on to say t...
...supervise the interior finishing of the houses, supported Mr Hardy in that they worked under the direction of Mr Johnson, the owner of Maxbuild. [55] In a submission before Mr Hardy was joined to the proceedings, Mr Holland referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court9 in 2004 in which the Court stated that all the circumstances have to be taken into account when deciding whether a person was employed as a contractor or an employee, and that the documentation is not definitive...
...THE ACT BETWEEN YVETTE PHILLIPS Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 28 April 2022 Heard at: Christchurch/ Ōtautahi Appearances: Appellant in person Ms F Becroft for the Respondent Judgment: 25 May 2022 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Work related mental injury s 21B Accident Compensation Act 2001] __________________________________________...