Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 62 Casey v Sensi Merivale Limited [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...to 9 May 2014 which would have seen the injunction expire in any event. The proposal included an adjournment of the proceedings in this Court until that date and their subsequent withdrawal by the plaintiff with no issue arising as to costs. A response to this proposal was requested by midday on the following day, 5 March 2014, before the case was due to be the subject of a telephone conference with a judge on 6 March 2014. This offer of settlement was prefaced by the words “w...

2. Manuirirangi v Parininihi Ki Waitotara Incorporation - Waiokura Te Kauae blocks, Section 27-29, 33,34, 40-44 and Section 111 Block VII Waimate Survey District and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 5603 (2013) 312 Aotea MB 104 (312 AOT 104) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...Manuirirangi requests that the Court order PKW to transfer title of the lands to the Trust by way of gift or alternatively for some nominal amount that may involve an exchange of shares. [2] PKW opposes the application and says that it has wider responsibilities to all of its shareholders regardless of tribal and hapū affiliation. Moreover, PKW argues that the incorporation was originally established for the benefit of all owners and with the consent of a majority of those individ...

3. [2015] NZSSAA 003 (13 February) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...year from the date of application for Unsupported Child’s Benefit. [16] The term “principal caregiver” is defined in s 3 of the Social Security Act 1964 as meaning: “The person who in the opinion of the Chief Executive has the primary responsibility for the day-to-day care of the child other than on a temporary basis.” [17] Consideration of whether or not there has been a breakdown in the child’s family such that his or her natural parents are unable to fully care for...

4. North v Worksop LCRO 213 / 2009 (9 April 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...document, and enquiring whether they could be signed by another director, naming the Applicant. Without reference to the Applicant, the Practitioner had replied that the Applicant would not sign either. The Applicant alleged that the Practitioner’s response was a misrepresentation and fraudulent advice. [26] The Practitioner did not deny that he had written the email but said that in the light of the history of the Applicant’s refusal to co-operate, he believed the statement...

5. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Irwin [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...breached that. One of the factors to be considered in claims of that nature where there is a limited liability is the extent of control. To use the language of Trevor Ivory Ltd v Anderson [1992] 2 NZLR 517, there can only be an assumption of responsibility to the extent that circumstances allow that and there may well be cases where the chain of authority is so long that a person working on site has virtually no opportunity to assume responsibility. That person may be the subje...

6. KC v LF LCRO 046/2012 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...that KC was involved in, without advising KC that the proceedings were being taped. (2) LF had retained private and confidential records which he was not entitled to do. (3) LF had refused to allow him the opportunity of a fair hearing. [6] In response to KC’s complaint LF submitted that: (1) At the time of conducting the review, he was not providing regulated services pursuant to s 9 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). (2) The role of a review officer was pu...

7. MG v HJ LCRO 256/2013 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...Hearing [14] Mr MG declined his consent to the review proceeding in his absence, so an applicant-only hearing was scheduled. A notice of hearing was sent to Mr MG by email and post to his last known address. The email could not be delivered, and no response was received from Mr MG indicating whether he would attend or not on the scheduled date. This Office was unsuccessful in its attempts to obtain a response from Mr MG throughout 2014. When the review hearing occurred on 16 Dec...

8. Nabi v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 28 (5 September 2011) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...fundamental that I regard the conduct as wilful. The ongoing disregard for her professional obligations precludes me regarding the grounds on which the complaint has been upheld as an isolated error or oversight. [16] The Adviser has failed to take responsibility for abrogating her professional duties, shown no regret, provided no apology to her client, and not signalled any intention to change her conduct. [17] I am accordingly satisfied the public should be protected from the Adviser...

9. JB v RW LCRO 87 / 2011 (1 February 2012) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...made by the individual who had the power of appointment. [9] What is clear is that the power of appointment did not lie with the Practitioner. Although he prepared Deeds of Appointment for the Applicant and S, it was not within his power or responsibility to compel the appointer to approve the appointment of the Applicant and S as trustees. There is nothing to suggest any wrongdoing on his part in failing to have the Applicant appointed as trustees. I find no support for this com...

10. Taueki - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2016) 363 Aotea MB 114 (363 AOT 114) [pdf, 158 KB]

    ...be infringed that would support a claim for damages and how would they be calculated? 7. There is insufficient evidence of financial hardship to support the application for fee waiver. Mr Tūpara is to file further submissions, or evidence in response to these matters on or before 4pm Friday 16 December 2016. I will then either decide the matter on the papers or issue further directions which may include the calling of a teleconference. I do not require a response from the respo...