Search Results

1. Southland Standards Committee v Evans [2011] NZLCDT 38 [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...prepared to co-operate with any requirements which the Tribunal would impose. A former President of the Southland District Law Society, Mr Mee, also gave a detailed reference in support of the practitioner. [12] The practitioner’s financial resources are modest and clearly being unable to practice as a lawyer will involve further penalty being suffered by him. [13] However, it has often been pointed out that the primary purpose of the Tribunal’s imposition of penalties is not...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 213 Dr X v a District Health Board [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...where justified vindication of a reputation is a material factor in the litigation… there will be cases where disproportion is justified in the Court’s overall discretion. [13] However, the value of the litigation to one party and the resources they are prepared to apply to it must be balanced against the other party’s interests. [14] Even taking the matters identified by the applicant into consideration, total costs in excess of $60,000 on an application for non-publi...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 41 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...these circumstances, I am satisfied that there is an adequate explanation for the delay. [15] The next substantive ground of opposition to leave being granted is that Ms Alim’s challenge “lacks merit”. Addressing this ground, LSG’s Human Resources Manager, Marie Park, says that Ms Alim failed comprehensively in all of the many applications, substantive and interlocutory, that she brought to the Authority. Ms Park says that defending all of those groundless claims has put L...

4. Meulenbroek v Vision Antenna Systems Ltd (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...it follows an award of costs is therefore punitive. The fact remains the evidence produced in support of the “defence” fell well short of satisfying the civil standard of proof. If anything, the small size of Vision’s business, its limited resources and its weak evidence ought to have led to acceptance of the amended Calderbank offer dated 22 August 2014. [15] Next we address the relevance of the fact that Mr Meulenbroek was represented by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings...

5. 2017 NZSSAA 027 (16 June 2017) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...requirement in s 70(1)(b) for the Ministry to deduct any overseas payments that fall within the criteria of that section is consistent with the purpose of the Act which is to provide financial support to people, taking into account that they use the resources available to them before seeking the financial support available under the Act.7 7 Section 1A(c) of the Social Security Act 1964 [17] At the hearing of this appeal Mr XXXX...

6. 2017 NZSSAA 042 (24 July 2017) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...requirement in s 70(1)(b) for the Ministry to deduct any overseas payments that fall within the criteria of that section is consistent with the purpose of the Act, which is to provide financial support to people, taking into account that they use the resources available to them before seeking financial support available under the Act.6 [22] We are satisfied that this benefit constitutes a benefit, pension or allowance providing for the same contingencies of disability and subsequent...

7. BORA Families Package (Income Tax and Benefits) Bill [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...Achieving a fair distribution of financial and social assistance to those most in need is a complex social policy matter. Moses J in R (on the application of Hooper) v Secretary of State for Work & Pensioners stated:3 In determining how to target resources to those in need, the legislature is entitled to impose ‘bright line’ rules which are easy to apply and which may not focus with precision on the merits of individual cases… such bright line rules in the context of social an...

8. [2016] NZCA 126 CA658/2015 The Commissioner of Salford School v Campbell [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...employment relationship and because employees may in certain cases be motivated in part by the desire for vindication. As this Court has previously said a “steely” approach is required.24 It has been repeatedly emphasised that the scarce resources of the Courts should not be burdened by litigants who choose to reject reasonable settlement offers, proceed with litigation and then fail to achieve any more than was previously offered. Where defendants have acted reasonably in...

9. AM Ltd v ZN and ZNZ [2014] NZDT 575 (30 May 2014) [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...presented costings carried out by a builder AA has worked with over a long period, CC of ABC Ltd. His cost for [document one] was $421,300+GST or $484,495.00. This does not include architect’s fees (of approximately $45,000+GST) or building/resource consent fees and significantly, is based on the assumption that ZN would both act as project manager and be working full-time on the build as a labourer. ZN denies that he ever suggested he would be available to work on the project fu...

10. Kumar v Ahuja [2014] NZIACDT 120 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 123 KB]

    ...or say an unlicensed person was responsible for aspects of the professional relationship. [16] The usual point of difficulty is what is controllable. Proper control requires that a professional person maintain effective control over employees and resources within a practice. Regardless, there are occasions when professional persons are blameless victims of deception, or other circumstances, and that will not trigger professional disciplinary consequences. However, the issue in this comp...