Search Results

1. [2016] NZEmpC 36 Western Bay of Plenty DHB v McInnes [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...since retracted that admission, for reasons I will come to. [17] Whether or not he tipped the alcohol onto the ground, it is clear from Mr McInnes’ own account that a male French tourist directed a disparaging remark at him and Mr McInnes’ response was to shine his torch into the Frenchman’s face and advance on him, “challenging him” (again to use Mr McInnes’ words) by demanding to know what he had said. The two then got into a scuffle and ended up on the ground. M...

2. Haupini v SRCC Holdings Ltd (Application by Defendant for Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...the Director would have assessed the offer in that light. [11.2] The Director had responded by way of a detailed five page letter setting out his counter-offer and reasons for rejecting the verbal settlement offer communicated by Mr St John but no response was received. The Director had been surprised to learn from reading the front page of the National Business Review published on Friday 6 May 2011 that the defendant company had rejected the Director’s settlement offer. [11.3] In...

3. NH v Singh LCRO 53/2013, 91/2013 and 115/2013 (27 August 2014) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...LCA. [55] For completeness, I note that the Committee took no further action in respect of various allegations made by Mr NH, including Mr Singh having improperly involved Mrs NH in the lending; making threatening communications to Mr NH; being responsible for Mr NH not filing defence documents; failing to consider Mrs NH’s illness was a valid reason for not repaying the loan; and failing to disclose his bankruptcy to the Australian Courts and not providing disclosure copies of lo...

4. JR v SW LCRO 91/2014 (27 March 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...Committee [X] which considered a complaint by JR (JR – the owners) against Mr SW. The Standards Committee decided that no further action on the complaint was necessary or appropriate. JR seeks a review of that decision. Background [2] JR was responsible for administering a body corporate which managed 12 residential units known as the [name] Apartments. [3] The units had weathertightness issues. [4] In November 2009 Mr SW received instructions to act for JR in relation to wea...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 097 Handley v South Taranaki District Council [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...the dog-leg section. That section presently functions as part of Nukumaru Station Road. Until road stopping processes are completed, it will remain as local road even despite the commission of the extension. The Requiring Authority remains the responsible road controlling authority for it. Until such time as the Requiring Authority divests itself of ownership of the dog-leg, it remains the responsible landowner for it. As road controlling authority and landowner, the Requiring Autho...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 96 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd Interlocutory judgment (No 23) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...support the request for documents which would indicate what authorisations Ms Park held, and from whom. [30] For LSG NZ, evidence was given by Ms Park, and by Mr Neil Bryant, Finance Controller of LSG NZ. [31] Each of those witnesses gave a response to most paragraphs of Mr Sellar’s affidavit. The essence of their evidence was that whilst Mr Sellar could describe the practices which applied to his former roles, he did not have a complete understanding of the practices which...

7. LCRO 144/2016 QT v UF (24 August 2018) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...decision was “served on, given to, or otherwise brought to the attention of” them within five working days after the decision was “made, given, or performed or exercised” there is no statutory discretion to relax the time limit. [45] The responsibility to make an application within the 30 working days period rests with the applicant. This position is emphasised in previous decisions of this Office. A Review Officer has no discretion to extend that time limit. [46] It is...

8. LCRO 168/2017 AH v OS and VI (21 December 2018) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...stated that “a growing list of people including Mrs HR, Mr AH and Mr T, were “affect[ed]” by “Mr OS’s 8 November 2016 covering letter to Mrs C which suggested a breach of confidence by Mr OS. Complaint to the firm [24] Mr AH said that in response to his complaint to the firm, Mr VI informed him that Mr KP, a partner in the firm, after carefully reviewing the file and consulting with Mrs C, had formed the view that “matters have been addressed appropriately and in line wi...

9. Donnelly v Tuala Rongohaere Marae (2007) 78 Ruatoria MB 55 (78 RUA 55) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...appreciate that they were responsible for the financial affairs of the reservation trust, not the marae committee. Regulations 3 and 15 of the Mäori Reservations Regulations 1994 make the point very clear. The trustees had no right to delegate their responsibility for funds concerning the marae to a committee. [44] In addition, they should have held annual meetings properly notified with 21 days clear notice and presented the marae annual accounts and reports on the activities...

10. Deputy Registrar - Moteo Estate Trust (2017) 58 Takitimu MB 137 (58 TKT 137) [pdf, 402 KB]

    ...obligations of his or her trust (whether by way of injunction or otherwise). [49] It is trite law that the paramount duty of trustees is to obey their terms of trust. In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal confirmed that: 19 [28] The general responsibilities of responsible trustees are set out in s 223 of the Act. That section refers to the following: (a) Carrying out the terms of the trust: (b) The proper administration and management of the business of the trust: (c) The p...