Search Results

1. Huang v Leung [2010] NZWHT Auckland 16 [pdf, 284 KB]

   ...cladding [24] Mr Grigg, a registered architect and Principal of an architectural and engineering consultancy, filed an Amended Brief of Evidence. At paras 46-47 of that document, Mr Grigg specifically listed the defects he identified during his investigations. Although Mr Grigg further elaborates on the findings already made by the Assessor, the findings and opinions of Mr Grigg and the Assessor are substantively the same and therefore not disputed. [25] Mr Morrison, the...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 154 TUV v WXY [pdf, 512 KB]

   ...University of Wellington [2018] NZEmpC 71 at [21]-[37]; AFT v BCM [2015] NZEmpC 234 at [58]. to the scheme and purpose of the Act. They must also be read consistently with the generally applicable principles relating to the way in which privative provisions in a statute are to be interpreted and applied by the courts. [28] Section 149 of the Act provides: 149 Settlements (1) Where a problem is resolved, whether through the provision of mediation services or otherw...

3. M D Cottle Family Trust & Anor v CAC 20002 & Anor [2014] NZREADT 91 [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...Committee deciding matters they may have no jurisdiction in. • There may be others.” [31] There are further careful submissions for the complainants which are generally rather puzzling and, likely, fanciful. They submit that there are grounds to investigate the Authority to establish if it knowingly suppressed the unlicensed status from them and the Committee. A belief is expressed for the complainants that there are grounds to investigate whether the Authority has attempted to p...

4. Chalecki v ACC [2012] NZACA 16 [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...[8] The evidence shows that the correct amount of the appellant’s RE was the subject of discussion and correspondence with the Corporation from at least as far back as 1993, and that on 12 May 1993, the Corporation agreed to review his file and investigate the correctness of the original decision, and to keep the appellant fully informed at all times. [9] Nothing appears to have been done regarding the investigation, although there was apparently correspondence concerning the matter...

5. Human Rights Act 1993

   A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z A Access to Tribunal file – application by plaintiff for return of certain documents – allegation by plaintiff of theft and destruction of documents – importance of maintaining Tribunal’s file intact – Public Records Act 2005, ss 17 and 18 Mullane v Attorney-Ge

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Human rights >
   3. Decisions - Index

6. [2019] NZEmpC 192 Johnson v Chief of the New Zealand Defence Force [pdf, 394 KB]

   ...light of his contention that the NZDF inquiry had been flawed, as was the conclusion it was very likely he had sent the email; he contended NZDF’s unjustified actions had led it to lose trust in him, and to impose a warning. [4] Following an investigation of Mr Johnson’s grievance, the Employment Relations Authority dismissed his personal grievance.1 [5] He brought a challenge to the Authority’s determination, repeating his claim that he had been unjustifiably disadvantage...

7. Sawyer v Victoria University of Wellington (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...the allegations made by Dr Sawyer and has applied to have the claim struck out. [3] VUW says the claim should be struck out because: [3.1] The proceedings allege breaches of IPPs 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11. Those principles, not having been investigated by the Privacy Commissioner, are not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. [3.2] There has been a full and final settlement of the matters complained of in these proceedings under the Employment Relations Act 2000. That set...

8. LCRO 156/2023 PF v NY, WJ and MQ (11 October 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

   LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2024] NZLCRO 130 Ref: LCRO 156/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN PF Applicant AND NY, WJ and MQ Respondents DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The

9. LCRO 25/2016 RZ v LB [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Review Officers is not appropriately equated with a general appeal. The obligations and powers of the Review Officer as described in the Act create a very particular statutory process. The Review Officer has broad powers to conduct his or her own investigations including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator and seek and receive evidence. These powers extend to “any review” … … the power of review is much broader th...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 246 Dunn v Waitemata DHB [pdf, 147 KB]

    ...the papers filed. On 18 December 2012, the Authority issued a determination 1 ruling that Mr Dunn did not raise a personal grievance in respect of the dismissal within the 90-day period and therefore it did not have jurisdiction to pursue its investigation further. Costs were reserved. [4] Mr Dunn has filed a challenge to the Authority’s determination and seeks a hearing de novo. As the two disadvantage grievances had already been withdrawn, the determination of the Authority...