Search Results

1. [2018] NZSSAA 14 (14 March 2018) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...relationship of couples who may nevertheless share premises and living expenses. A relationship will not be a relationship in the nature of marriage for the purposes of s 63(b), therefore, unless it exhibits this mutual commitment and assumption of responsibility. In the context of the Social Security Act, this will necessarily include financial support or interdependence or, at least, a mutual understanding about the parties’ financial arrangements of the kind I have suggested....

2. MN Ltd v QN & EN [2021] NZDT 1440 (27 April 2021) [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...scope of the works (whether the other part of the fence was included); the instructions (whether concrete or timber was intended between the pool area and the house); and the materials (the colour of the roofing for the pergola). 35. In taking responsibility for the design element of the project, it was incumbent upon MN to ensure this was presented in a way where there could be some certainty as to the instructions. 36. I therefore find that the lack of documentation for the design...

3. Tana v Mahanga - Pukahakaha East 5B (2022) 255 Taitokerau MB 229 (255 TTK 229) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...position to identify that for itself. [42] I see no merit in the submission made by Mr Beaumont that given the parties involvement in the Wai 1040 Waitangi Tribunal Inquiry, that extensive review of the documentation filed would not be required. Responsible counsel would be required to review all documentation filed against their client. That would be a standard obligation in order for counsel to fulfil their obligations under the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2008. [43] However,...

4. [2023] NZIACDT 10 - NG v Murthy (15 March 2023) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...small number of items to the client and also to another adviser who had been briefly consulted, but this was not the full record. He sought the Authority’s assistance to encourage Ms Murthy to disclose the personal information held. [16] In response to the complaint, the Authority requested information from Ms Murthy on 7 September 2022. She replied on the same day stating that the complainant’s partner asked her to process a second s 61 request in an email. She agreed to do...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 115 Kowhai Intermediate School Board of Trustees [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...to which he was legally entitled, not least so that he could meet the costs involved in the challenges. It was argued that this was an access to justice issue. [17] If it was the case that repayment became necessary, Mr West would act in a responsible fashion by meeting any such liability. He had provided a pledge not to sell his residence, which has an equity of some $900,000. He would, if necessary, raise funds on the security of that equity. He submitted that the provision...

6. LCRO 62/2021 NR v JM (16 June 2022) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...• The order for compensation is excessive and there is no jurisdiction to make orders for loss of dignity and distress. • The fine imposed is punitive and exemplary. • The costs order is excessive in the circumstances. Mrs JM’s response [13] Mrs JM says that it is “a matter for the rules and powers of the Committee” as to whether or not the Committee has “overstepped its powers and the Act by granting additional compensation”. [14] As a final comment, she...

7. [2021] NZACC 107 - Ballantyne v ACC (19 July 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...hurdles arising from the review applications as filed. 6 At page 4 of the review decision. Section 135 provides that an application for review must be made within three months of the date of the Corporation’s decision. [35] In response to the issue whether the Corporation issued a decision on 1 June 2013 as defined in s6 of the Act, the Court answers “No”. [36] In response to the issue whether there is a power to review the Corporation’s decision on 13 Septemb...

8. LCRO 68/2022 YE v AL (23 May 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...supplied, Mr AL’s affirmation that he was happy with the water supply situation and the fact that he did not advise Mr YE that the water intake was some distance away, did not give Mr YE any reason to enquire further. [58] Mr AL must bear some responsibility for not alerting Mr YE to the means by which water was supplied to the property. This is not a situation where an adverse finding should be made against Mr YE. Conclusion / decision [59] By failing to take into accoun...

9. HurricanesCrusadersChiefs v Accident Compensation Corporation (Levy Payments) [2022] NZACC 219 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...code is 93180 Sport and physical recreation - professional rugby; and that the Corporation understands that the coaches and the players for the Hurricanes Super Rugby team are employed by the New Zealand Rugby Union (NZRU) and the Partnership is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the team. [11] The appellants did not agree with the decisions and asked the Corporation to reconsider that decision. They also asked the Corporation to consider setting a new CU code to reflec...

10. [2024] NZEnvC 160 Evans v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 276 KB]

    ...Valley in circumstances where in previous decades, before the Marlborough Catchment Board had been disbanded, the board and the Crown had planted conifers in the vicinity of that land for the purpose of controlling erosion. [20] That planting was responsible for an infestation of wilding conifers on Stronvar Station, amongst other adjoining land. Mr Evans had long sought that the authorities take steps to eradicate and control the wilding pines, although that did not happen. [...