Search Results

1. [2022] NZREADT 9 BT ST v REAA (12 May 2022) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...[34] The Appellants submit that whilst the document is not really relevant to the issues, it provides the Tribunal with a more complete picture of further developments and provides context for the subsequent correspondence. [35] The Licensee in response has not opposed the admission of NF letter A, and has sought herself to admit a further three documents as follows: (a) Letter dated 24 October 2019 from NF to the Appellants notifying their intention to cancel the licence (NF letter...

2. Boulton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 135 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...intervention is indicated and appropriate. For example, questions arise whether angioplasty would relieve this stenosis; would stenting prevent recurrence of stenosis? Clinical judgment would involve consideration of the indications such as response to blood pressure treatment, patient compliance with blood pressure treatments, the impact of blood pressure on overall health and other such factors. The medical literature also notes adverse outcomes of angioplasty. The time when...

3. Enviro Waste Services Ltd v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Work Related Injury) [2024] NZACC 28 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Corporation thus failed to comply with its statutory obligations, which resulted in Enviro Waste being entitled to a deemed decision under section 146 of the Act. [43] This Court acknowledges that Enviro Waste’s email of 22 November 2021 was in response to the Corporation’s decision of 15 November 2021 advising that the Corporation had accepted a work-related injury claim for Ms Grattan. However, this Court finds that Enviro Waste’s email of 22 November 2021 did not constitut...

4. McKenzie v ACC (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 65 [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...I think that she has a good argument to put forward to ACC that they should cover this. It is very clear from the radiology reports that the pathology occurred after the trauma in 2019. [27] On 15 September 2022, Ms Preston-Thomas commented in response to Mr Rietveld’s report. With reference to the first x-ray on 18 September 2019, five months after the accident, she noted that an x-ray would show changes to the bone, but would not show the cartilage. The x-ray was not reported as...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 141 Van Den Brink Group v Waikato District Council [pdf, 401 KB]

   ...Pookeno, Tuakau and Raglan and thus proposed amended has a confined spatial impact; • there is no evidence to suggest that the proposal is of particular interest to iwi or the community as no s274 parties joined this appeal; • the proposal is in response to the need to set back development back from the banks of rivers in the Commercial Zone (COMZ) to safeguard the amenity and character of the area, enable public access and safeguard water quality, while also enabling development and u...

6. Stryder v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 125 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...due to him, after deductions to reimburse WINZ, for the period 18 October 2010 - 31 March 2022. After deductions, the net amount was $235,845.06, but income tax had to be deducted from this amount. The Corporation advised, in the absence of a response from Mr Stryder within 10 working days, that the payment would be taxed according to his current tax code. [16] On 29 June 2022, the above information was repeated in a payment advice form for the same period. The only difference bet...

7. [2024] NZEmpC 6 C3 Ltd v O’Brien [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...to be found, in the substantive hearing of this matter, that Mr O’Brien had not offered to provide a second sample, it is arguable that C3 Ltd’s failure to obtain a second sample to be tested on its own volition, was not within the range of responses open to a fair and reasonable employer in the circumstances. The circumstances include the Standard, which provides that it is best practice to obtain a second sample for testing in such cases, together with Mr O’Brien’s denial t...

8. N Ltd v SQ & TQ [2023] NZDT 314 (25 July 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...Tribunal also heard from BD, the licensed building practitioner engaged by the respondents. BD described MC of N Ltd as very creative, and he did good 3-D renders. He said during the first six months of the project, there were no issues and N Ltd was very responsive. However, he said MC was away a lot and BD’s opinion was that N Ltd’s staff’s skill set wasn’t up to scratch. He did not believe the staff member working on the project fully understood the building code and he had to...

9. LCRO 173/2022 JV v QR (6 May 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...that opportunity and that it was unnecessary to hear further from the respondent. The matter was therefore set down for an applicant-only hearing, which I conducted on 30 April 2024. [25] I record that having carefully read the complaint, the response to the complaint, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of and in opposition to the application for review, and having heard from the applicant in person, there are no additional issues or questions in my mind t...

10. Hikatangata v Phillips - Succession to Te Rata Phillips [2025] Chief Judge's MB 408 (2025 CJ 408) [pdf, 350 KB]

    ...members’ kōrero. [22] Te Iringa Hikatangata supported Sharon. She challenged the respondent’s blood line, claiming that only those of the right blood should be owners. She also relied upon the words of her elders. [23] Ms Barker submitted in response that the onus was on the applicants to show there was an error in the succession orders. She submitted that they have not discharged this onus, rather they have relied on hearsay. There is no direct evidence that can be relied...