Search Results

1. Body Corporate 85978 and Unit Owners of St Pauls Apartments v Wellington City Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...in respect of multi-unit complexes are essentially administrative in nature. They require claims by separate owners of dwellinghouses in multi-unit complexes to have their claim treated as a single claim in order to avoid the duplication of resources that would be involved in dealing with each claim separately. They also reduce the difficulty of dealing with claims relating to common property when unit owners file their claims individually. If the claim goes to hearing the Trib...

2. Finn and Anor as Trustees of the Angela Poynter Trust v Chen [2011] NZWHT Auckland 40 [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...Philip Crow, the WHRS assessor, identified significant defects with the home (similar to Mr Angell‟s report) and recommended a full reclad and replacement of a substantial amount of timber framing. [8] The claimants do not have financial resources to complete the remedial work recommended by the experts. This claim is proceeding on the basis of estimated repair costs of $439,773.25. Mr Angell estimated remedial costs of $455,087.25 and Mr Crow $373,821. [9] Mr Finn...

3. Wentzel v Collie [2012] NZWHT Auckland 15 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...assert that Ms Collie breached the vendor warranty given at clause 6.2(5) of the sale and purchase agreement. This clause provides: (5) Where the vendor has done or caused or permitted to be done on the property any works : (a) any permit, resource consent or building consent required by law was obtained; and (b) the works were completed in compliance with those permits or consents; and (c) where appropriate, a code compliance certificate was issued for those works....

4. JE v AC and SY LCRO 259/2012 (17 February 2015) [pdf, 154 KB]

   LCRO 259/2012 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [North Island] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN JE Applicant AND AC AND SY Respondents The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mrs JE applied for a review of a decision by the [North Island] Standards Com

5. [2013] NZEmpC 81 Brake v Grace Team Accounting Ltd [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...viewing discretionary costs, improving the efficiency of administration work and arranging a meeting with the bank manager to outline the problems and to seek support by way of additional facilities. He decided that he needed to get legal and human resources advice should redundancies be needed as he had not ever made any staff redundant in the past. He sent an email to Wendy Macphail of Employment Law Services on the morning of Saturday 10 April 2010 in which he stated: I have...

6. Trustees of Oparau No 1 Block Trust - Oparau No 1 and Pirongia West 1 2B3D (2004) 109 Waikato MB 300 (109 W 300) [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   Minute Book: 109 W 300 In the Maori Land Court of New Zealand Waikato Maniapoto District DECISION Background Files: A20030004133 A20030004134 A20030004129 IN THE MATTER of Oparau No 1 Block IN THE MAnER of Pirongia West 1 2B3D Block The Oparau Block is a large scale farming station that is operated by the trustees of the Oparau No 1 Block Trust formed under section 438 of 1he Maori Affairs Act 1953. The block is farmed as a beef and sheep breeding and fattening unit. T

7. [2017] NZEmpC 95 Fraser v McDonalds and Doran v Carrick [pdf, 355 KB]

   ...with your Restaurant Manager/Franchisee. You can also request your own wage and time records. If the matter is not resolved in that discussion you should use the PAL programme (refer page 11) in which case the matter will be reviewed by Human Resources who will investigate and share relevant information. At any time you may seek advice from a representative: a parent/guardian, delegate, union official or other representative. Security of Hours From 1 October 2015, all McD...

8. National Standards Committee v Shand [2019] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...It was not reasonable that he put in place an alternative funding arrangement, whereby Mr Bligh would seamlessly be able to continue the litigation with representation on terms that he had made other arrangements for fees out of some personal resources. This led to the unfortunate situation where Mr Bligh’s lawyer had to apply to the Court for leave to be removed from the role of litigation lawyer for Mr Bligh. [61] We address some of the arguments formally put for Mr Shand. It...

9. LCRO 275/2016 KN v YL (4 March 2019) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...she had played in the firms she had been associated with could most accurately be described as that of a trusted advisor. [58] She explained that when she first commenced practising on her own account, she was a “small minnow” with limited resources, who had a passionate interest in providing service to clients in the employment law area, but little appetite for the business of running a business. [59] When she first commenced practice, Ms YL recognised there would be consider...

10. LCRO 116/2017 GC v KM (31 May 2018) [pdf, 420 KB]

    LCRO 116/2017 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN GC Applicant AND KM Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr GC, a lawyer who at the relevant time was a sole practitioner practising as [Law Firm], Lawyers (the