Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 2 The NZ Tertiary Education Union Te Hautu Kahurangi O Aotearoa Inc v Vice Chancellor of the Auckland University of Technology [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...676 (Member Dumbleton) [First determination]; and Tertiary Education Union v Vice Chancellor Auckland University of Technology [2022] NZERA 690 (Member Dumbleton) [Compliance determination]. [7] As a consequence of the university’s response, TEU applied to the Authority for a compliance order. The application was accorded priority. On 19 December 2022 the Authority issued its first determination largely agreeing with TEU’s application. It concluded that, in principl...

2. O'Neill v Accident Compensation Corporation (Cover) [2024] NZACC 191 (26 November 2024) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...has significant evidential value in hernia claims. Some of the questions are directed to the criteria in the hernia 5 Brock v Accident Compensation Corporation [2004] NZACC 240. guidelines to enable the Corporation to assess cover. The responses of a claimant are used in subsequent evidence. [34] In seeking details of the accident and injury, Mr O’Neill was asked whether there was any direct force or unexpected aspect of the mechanism (such as slipping or dropping a we...

3. Samuel v Samuel - Succession to Te Urupiki Samuel (2025) 334 Waiariki MB 271 (334 WAR 271) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...The process of ‘whāngai’ normally involved taking a child at birth or in early infancy and raising the ‘whāngai’ parents or parent until ‘whāngai’ marries. 4. If there were no close relatives and the ‘whāngai’ had assumed the responsibilities of caring for the adoptive parents until old age then the ‘whāngai’ would receive the whole of the interest of the (matua whāngai). 5. If there were circumstances falling outside these principes, then those will be tak...

4. B Ltd v NK & KX [2025] NZDT 28 (27 January 2025) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...of the contract by B Ltd, such that NK and/or KX were entitled to terminate the contract? 55. On 20 April 2022, NK and KX sent through a detailed letter setting out their various concerns. 56. The reply of 22 April 2022 contains the following responses: a. “Thank you very much for providing detailed feedback.” b. “Our typical process (which hasn't been followed yet in your case) is to present the initial design to the client and to discuss the rationale behind each...

5. Fong v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of entitlements) [2025] NZACC 004 (13 January 2025) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...requested an opinion from Mr Schweder which was difficult to obtain due to the pressures on his practice at the time. While Mr Schweder convened a telehealth consultation with Mr Fong and discussed treatment options, he did not provide a substantive response to the request for an opinion on the causation question. [40] The Corporation then sought a further opinion from Mr Henry. [41] Mr Henry reviewed Mr Lefono’s report, the underlying documentation and the following subsequen...

6. [2024] NZREADT 35 – CAC 2108 v Barfoot Thompson (20 September 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...We have seen no evidence of a pattern of unsatisfactory conduct amongst inexperienced salespeople at Barfoot Greenlane. We agree with Ms Burkhart that Barfoot Greenlane should be able to rely on delegating to qualified supervisors who accept responsibility for adopting and implementing the supervisory policies and procedures. The legislative framework does not mandate that supervisors are responsible for supervising other supervisors. [61] The unsatisfactory conduct by Ms Chen mo...

7. Walters v Walters - Te Kohanga Lots 1 & 3 - 27 [2024] Chief Judge's MB 1357 (2024 CJ 1357) [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...hearing at 10:40am, Wednesday 27 March 2024 to determine the merits of the application. Ko te hātepe ture o te tono nei Procedural History [4] On 11 February 2024, the Registrar’s Report was sent to all parties known to the Court. [5] One response dated 7 March 2024 was received from the respondent Peter Junior who opposed the application. Mr Walters noted that he was the chief caregiver and power of attorney for his mother Bella Walters. He stated that the applicant was o...

8. [2025] NZIACDT 37 - ZH v Ma (23 July 2025) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...It was a condition that the complainant work for ZR Home. 1 ZH v Ma [2025] NZIACDT 30. 2 TG v Ma [2025] NZIACDT 35. 3 [10] The complainant arrived in New Zealand on 17 April 2023. There was no work available for him at ZR Home. [11] In response to a report of exploitation made to the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment concerning ZR Home, the complainant was declared eligible for a migrant exploitation protection visa on 20 June 2023. He was issued with an ope...

9. [2025] NZLVT 026 – Casata Limited v Minister for Land Information (17 June 2025) [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...the matter to the Tribunal. However, the costs of a claimant in doing so should not be unreasonably borne by the taxpayer where there is no evidence to support the claim.25 I consider that the Respondent has been put to costs in presenting a response to a claim which lacked any basis in evidence and was declined. Further, there appears to have been a commercial element in Casata pursuing the claim. The Casata claim focused on compensating a business loss. I am satisfied that it is...

10. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horsley [2014] NZLCDT 9 [pdf, 147 KB]

    ...misled his family about the relationship but also, as is clear from the narrative above, he had misled professional colleagues and the Probation Service (and ultimately the Court) in order to keep the relationship secret. It is apparent that his responses to Judge Harding were also less than fulsome. Elements of misconduct charge [31] Section 4 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (“the Act”) sets out fundamental obligations of lawyers. 4 Fundamental obligations of lawy...