Search Results

Search results for judgments on line.

2844 items matching your search terms

  1. Panchalingam v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 196 [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 28 November 2023 Held at: Wellington/Whanganui-a-tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 4 December 2023 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), Schedule 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decisi...

  2. Madoc v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Cover) [2023] NZACC 144 [pdf, 306 KB]

    ...COMPENSATION ACT BETWEEN GRAHAM MADOC Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 18 July 2023 Heard at: Dunedin/Otepoti Appearances: Ms B Woodhouse for the Appellant Mr I Hunt for the Respondent Judgment: 12 September 2023 _____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J MCGUIRE [Revocation of Cover – s 65 Accident Compensation Act 2001] __________________________...

  3. [2020] NZEnvC 139 Flax Trust v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 298 KB]

    ...fact- finding function in appeals under the RMA so I consider that assertion no further. Counsel’s other points are correct: that this was an application for retrospective consent to authorise unlawful behaviour; and a theme of the court’s judgment is that there are no absolute winners in this case. Failure of duty as consent authority [19] Mr Page submits18 there was a “complete systematic failure” by the Council when

  4. JSLB-BIM_Redacted-_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 1.2 MB]

    ...The Minister for Courts: Responsibilities include oversight of the administrative support for the courts system and independent judicial decision-making, the collection of fines and reparations, service of court documents, and enforcement of civil judgment orders. The Attorney-General : Responsibilities include being the senior Law Officer of the Crown with principal responsibility for the government's administration of the law, the principal legal adviser to the government, the...

  5. [2024] NZLVT 011 - Hamilton City Council v Shaw (15 April 2024) [pdf, 452 KB]

    ...improved lifestyle blocks. However, a reconciliation of the sales evidence referred to was not entirely clear to the Tribunal. [36] In giving oral evidence at the hearing, Mr Urlich confirmed that the concluding adopted values were based on his judgement as to the comparability of the subject property to his sales evidence. This explanation is accepted. Stage 1 land (Area B9b) [37] SGHU applies the two approaches in determining the ‘before’ and ‘after’ values, the Resi...

  6. [2021] NZEmpC 44 Wills v Farmlands Co-Operative Society Ltd [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...for costs BETWEEN SUSAN WILLS Plaintiff AND FARMLANDS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: A Sharma, counsel for plaintiff S Townsend, counsel for defendant Judgment: 14 April 2021 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH [1] Susan Wills unsuccessfully challenged a determination of the Employment Relations Authority refusing leave to extend the time available to her to raise a person...

  7. [2010] NZEmpC 133 Mercer v Maori Television Service [pdf, 82 KB]

    ...Authority BETWEEN DAVID MERCER Plaintiff AND MAORI TELEVISION SERVICE Defendant Hearing: 12-14 and 23 April 2010 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Shelley Eden, counsel for the plaintiff Blair Edwards, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 8 October 2010 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] The plaintiff, Mr Mercer, has challenged a determination of the Employment Relations Authority which found that his dismissal on notice was a decision that a fair and reasonab...

  8. River Oaks Farm Ltd & Ors as Trustees of Ingodwe Trust v Olsson [pdf, 136 KB]

    ...substantial. It is preferable, for the reasons just mentioned, to focus on both concepts for they are each relevant to causation issues. No form of words will ultimately provide an automatic answer to what is essentially a question of commonsense judgment.” [41] This was also the approach in GW Atkins Ltd v Scott9. [42] The real test of the liability of Mr Moran is the application of the “but for” test. Would the house have leaked but for the failed remediation? The ans...

  9. Canterbury District Law Society v Horne [2009] NZLCDT 4 [pdf, 75 KB]

    ...credit. He repaid the $50,000 to his client within a month, he has not been refunded by the client and it may be difficult for him to recover these funds in the future. He has not sought to minimise his actions or the seriousness of this error of judgement. That is how the Tribunal sees it, as a very serious error in professional judgement, but we are persuaded not one that has occurred before or is likely to occur again in Mr Horne’s practice. [10] Clearly, in mitigation als...