Search Results

1. Nairn v Peebles LCRO 109 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...carrying out a due diligence investigation of the property including (but not limited to) an investigation of the following: 1. The Certificate of Title; 2. any leases or other rights to occupy grounds in respect of the property; 3. the Planning and Resource Management requirements and constraints affecting the property, including zone, reticulation of services and roading, etc. [23] It may be argued that the enquiry about the identified title ought to have raised a question in t...

2. Shropshire v March LCRO 64 / 2010 (28 October 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...the matter was an example of her failure to demonstrate professionalism. The Applicant questioned whether the Practitioner was using the legal process for a proper purpose. An underlying implication is that the proceeding was a waste of legal resources, and unnecessary use of the court system. 5 [16] The professional obligations of a lawyer are to promote and protect the interest of their client. There is no general professional duty on a lawyer towards a third party wh...

3. Homes v ACC [2014] NZACA 14 [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...where, “for any ... reason”, there is a question which ought to be submitted to the High Court, including by reason of its general or public importance. [23] In exercising its discretion, the Authority is mindful of the proper use of the scarce resources of the High Court. Leave is not given as a matter of course; O’Neill at [25]. [24] Such an applicant seeks an indulgence, so the onus rests on him or her to satisfy the Authority that, in all the circumstances, the interests o...

4. LCRO 1/2016 87/2016 and 88/2016 GV v Standards Committee [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...provisions for the Court of Appeal”. The LCDT proceedings [21] In a letter to this Office dated 12 June 2017, the Committee denies bias on behalf of its members and it is difficult to reach the view that a Committee would expend time and resources investigating complaints against Ms GV merely because it had been “unsuccessful” in previous proceedings against her. [22] The Complaints Service points out that Ms GV has not referred to any direct evidence to support her alle...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...and 10 May 2016 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Marx, plaintiff in person R Scott, counsel for defendant Judgment: 10 June 2016 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS Introduction [1] Mrs Marx was employed as a Resource Teacher, Learning and Behaviour with the Southern Cross Campus in 2012. She was suspended on 29 January 2013 and later dismissed by way of letter dated 7 May 2013. Mrs Marx filed a claim in the Employment Relations Authority, all...

6. Borst v ACC [2012] NZACA 3 [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...Cadenhead DCJ at paragraphs [23] – [40], and approved by the Authority in Langhorne v ACC [2010] NZACA 2. See also Judge Cadenhead’s comment in Saipe v ACC (Decision No 21/2008), concerning the relevance of ensuring a proper use of scarce judicial resources. Background to the Section 114 Assessment Appeal [5] On 26 May 1976 the appellant was seriously injured in a motor vehicle accident; he was an earner and for a period he received earnings related compensation (ERC), returnin...

7. WL & BN v SD LCRO 106/2015 (5 July 2016) [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...get involved in”. [40] The description by the Committee of this complaint as part of a ‘tit for tat’ exchange, and its determination that it did not warrant the Committee becoming involved in that exchange, is the appropriate response. The resources of the LCS and this Office are to be used for matters which should help the LCS meet the objectives of the Act and the rules. It was not necessary for Mr WL to suggest possible breaches of the rules in his response to Mr VL’s compla...

8. [2017] EmpC 92 P v A [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...People and Culture Manager for A. She is based in the 1 Employment Court Regulations 2000, r 19(2). New Plymouth branch of the defendant company, but her role is to perform the human resources function for the defendant on a national basis. [6] In C’s affidavit, she sets out the circumstances surrounding the defendant’s delay in filing a statement of defence to the plaintiff’s claim. The plaintiff clearly served t...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 32 Spillman v Tandem Skydiving 2002 Ltd t/a Taupo Tandem [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172, (2004) 17 PRNZ 16 (CA) at [53]. approach was reiterated by the Court of Appeal in Bluestar Print Group (NZ) Ltd v Mitchell where the Court said:10 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. ... The importance of Calderbank offers is...

10. LD v Review of prosecutorial decision LCRO 15/2015 (15 June 2015) [pdf, 168 KB]

    ...matters to the Tribunal. The Court said that:21 The protection to the practitioner once afforded by the threshold test [in the Law Practitioners Act] is thus now met by other means. The oversight of the LCRO should also assist in protecting the resources of the Tribunal and prevent it from being overwhelmed by petty or trivial cases. 16 Above n 9 at [50]. 17 At [23]. 18 Above n 10, at [31]. 19 Above n 9, at [54](h). 20 At [53]–[54]...