Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 102 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 460 KB]

   ...statement in her notice of opposition; she was not prepared to provide any of the further and better particulars requested by Air NZ. Despite that emphatic statement a subsequently issued minute provided her with an opportunity to make submissions, in response to Air NZ’s application and submissions, if she wished to do so. The time allowed for her submissions has elapsed and she has not taken up that opportunity or sought further time to do so. [9] The starting point is the...

2. LCRO 008/2016 VZ v NK (4 December 2018) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...taken the first opportunity to cancel the Agreement. [32] The other significant event which arose in the course of this matter was the death of Mrs KB and the fact that no person applied for Letters of Administration of her Estate. Nobody assumed responsibility on behalf of Mrs KB’s Estate to enable title to pass to Mr and Mrs VZ and this was a matter beyond Ms NK’s control. [33] Similarly, nobody assumed the responsibility to account to Mr and Mrs VZ for their deposit. When...

3. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...to act in good faith, has “caused [her] undue stress.” She says that Mr BB has “overpromised and underperformed”. The Standards Committee determination [13] The Standards Committee confirmed: 3 …that Mr BB was invited to provide a response to the complaint and expressed his willingness to provide the Standards Committee with any information it needed to make its decision. He also confirmed his willingness to resolve the fee with Ms CL but understood it was her preference...

4. Information Sharing Agreement for Sharing Permitted Information with Statistics New Zealand [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...to matters that are appropriate for the Parties to manage internally within their respective organisations. Safeguards to protect privacy 15. The Parties will: 6 15.1. Create a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which details roles and responsibilities of each Party for the data sharing under this Agreement. 15.2. Ensure careful design and implementation of the extract process to ensure that only Permitted information, and no Suppressed information, is shared. 15.3. Develop...

5. LCRO 14/2020 CL v BB (18 December 2020) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...to act in good faith, has “caused [her] undue stress.” She says that Mr BB has “overpromised and underperformed”. The Standards Committee determination [13] The Standards Committee confirmed: 3 …that Mr BB was invited to provide a response to the complaint and expressed his willingness to provide the Standards Committee with any information it needed to make its decision. He also confirmed his willingness to resolve the fee with Ms CL but understood it was her preference...

6. [2020] NZEnvC 106 Rangitane o Tamaki Nui a rua v Manawatu Wanganui Regional Council [pdf, 9.1 MB]

   ...is critical to Kahungunu that its cultural concerns, and the significance they are given in the RMA and the One Plan, are appropriately considered, by the Court. 6. In addition, it is noted that the Court has specifically requested Kahungunu response to various matters as outlined in its minute of 9 April 2020. 7. Kahungunu does not consider that any party would be affected by it re-joining the appeals. It was involved in the process for an extensive time and since it withdrew has...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 073 Smith v Young [pdf, 782 KB]

   ...hand, there is no evidence to the claim that the Smiths contributed to this problem. Those factors strongly support an order for costs against the Youngs. [26] The proceedings required significant input from experts. The Youngs bear some related responsibility. From November 2019, the parties signalled to the court that they were nearing full agreement. In April 2020, the court was advised that :Mr Young had directed Mr Charters to refine his initial remediation design to be cost­...

8. LCRO 209/2018 LY v RT (26 June 2019) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...not criticising the quality of the work done by Mrs RT just the cost and the length of time it took. [23] As to the manner in which Mrs RT responded to the application for review, I record that I can see no basis for a suggestion that Mrs RT’s response was in any way unprofessional, unethical, disrespectful or discourteous. [24] A defence to a complaint (or application for review) will invariably be couched using firm language. That is the nature of disputes between people: there...

9. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Whitcombe [2019] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...breach the Rules pleaded, in a manner that was wilful or reckless? 4. Were the practitioner’s defaults at such a level as to constitute negligence, such as to bring the profession into disrepute? Penalty 5. What represented a proportionate response to the above findings? Background [7] Mrs L C and the practitioner had met in the early 2000s through a professional connection and the practitioner described their relationship as “more personal than professional”. He indica...

10. [2018] NZEmpC 117 GEA Process Engineering Ltd v Schicker [pdf, 237 KB]

    ...leave to raise a personal grievance out of time. [16] As the Authority Member states in the good faith report, the period of delay of particular concern was the period from 10 May 2016 to 6 March 2017. During this period, there was inadequate response from GEA to requests from the Authority as to progress. There were clearly difficulties occurring between GEA and Dynaflow over disclosure of documents. As the documents which GEA was seeking to have disclosed are clearly importan...