Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 85 Joyce v Ultimate Siteworks Ltd [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...$20,000, with an additional approximately $4,500 for costs on this application. (e) USL will be significantly affected financially if it succeeds in its defence of the challenge and is unable to recover costs. (f) It is in the interests of justice that that security for costs be awarded. [4] Mr Joyce opposes the application. He says he is not impecunious and does not have financial hardship to the extent asserted by USL. He says that the information provided by USL is based...

2. NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 91/2013 and 115/2013 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN AND MR NH DHIRENDRA (SHEAN) SINGH Except for the Respondent the names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed DECISION Introduction [1] When the subject matter of Mr NH’s complaint arose, Mr Singh, who is a lawyer and sole principal of EFG Firm, was also a: (a) Beneficiary of XYZ Trust, a trust settled and administered by his brother, and another trustee.1 (b) Director and shareholder...

3. Stewart v Accident Compensation Corporation (Vocational Independence) [2022] NZACC 197 [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...evidence, to allow for an orderly and rational process. However, the Court may hear any evidence that it thinks fit (s 156(1) of the Act), and there were certain matters of fact which remained unclear to the Court. Primarily, in the interests of justice being done and seen to be done to Ms Stewart, the Court allowed her to give evidence, be examined and cross-examined. Background [3] Ms Stewart was born in October 1956. She worked in administrative roles, most recently as a cou...

4. KY v VZ LCRO 223 / 2010 (29 September 2011) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...REVIEW REPORT [1] An application was made by KY (the Applicant) for review of a decision by the Standards Committee declining to uphold his complaint against VZ (the Practitioner). [2] The Practitioner represented the Applicant in a criminal matter in the second trial after the first ended with a hung jury. He was found guilty. He later discovered information that led him to file a complaint against the Practitioner. [3] His complaint was that the Practitioner ought not to ha...

5. LD v VW LCRO 223 / 2011 (1 June 2012) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...the Applicant agreed. She had sounded out a sentencing indication with the Judge at the status hearing, which included the Applicant attending anti-violence counselling as part of the convict and discharge. [7] The Practitioner added that the matter was remanded for several months but the Applicant had not liked counselling and ended up having private counselling, but he had not done this to the satisfaction of the Court and he had then voluntarily engaged in further counselling....

6. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Moody [2016] NZLCDT 23 [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...would be proper to record the nature of Mr Moody’s illness and the evidence supporting his lack of capacity. To this extent the interim suppression order concerning medical information is therefore lifted. However, it remains in relation to matters which are of a more personal or personality related nature. These more private aspects of the illness are not required to be published in order to provide a coherent account of the situation and we consider the practitioner’s inter...

7. Edwards v Winitana - Matera Ahu Whenua Trust (2017) 165 Waiariki MB 88 (165 WAR 88) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...of the occupation of the block by Mr Winitana and Mr Holmes. This includes the capital expenditure that has been incurred in relation to the block – including any expenditure incurred by or on behalf of Mr Winitana. Counsel submits that such matters cannot be resolved if Mr Winitana is not a party to the proceedings’. [14] In addition Mr Dowthwaite states that the trust is willing to offset the Defendants Development Costs (as defined in the Draft deed of Agreement) against the...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 58 Kennedy v Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki – Ministry for Children [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Employment Relations Act 2000, s 179(5)(a). [6] However, she does not point to any jurisdiction for the Court to consider a challenge with respect to a direction that is not a determination. She says the reason she has brought these matters to the Court as challenges is because of the lack of another adequate avenue through which to challenge the Authority’s directions. [7] Oranga Tamariki submits that the minutes are determinations, but that they are about the procedu...

9. [2011] NZEmpC 6 Green v Transpacific Industries Group NZ Ltd [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...available to the company is a subset of the balance of convenience. [7] Finally, because the remedy of interlocutory injunction is discretionary, the Court should stand back from the minutiae of the first two tests and determine where the overall justice of the case lies until trial. Again, for reasons just set out, that is an artificiality in some respects but the Court should nevertheless take into account any further considerations such as delay, bad faith conduct of either of t...

10. Pirika v Eru - Te Ngae Farm Trust [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 127 (2013 APPEAL 127) [pdf, 151 KB]

    2013 Māori Appellate Court MB 127 IN THE MĀORI APPELLATE COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20120013572 APPEAL 2012/12 UNDER Section 58, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF an appeal against an order of the Māori Land Court made on 8 October 2012 at 62 Waiariki MB 92 in respect of Te Ngae Farm Trust BETWEEN ARAMAKARAKA PIRIKA, HIWINUI HEKE, PIRIHIRA FENWICK AND WHARANGI WAETFORD Appellants AND TAI ERU AND RANGIMAHUTA EASTHOPE Respondents H...