Search Results

1. Chalecki v ACC [2015] NZACA 1 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...14 April 1993, the Corporation wrote to Mr Chalecki advising that it was unable to accept his request for a self-employment grant. This confirmed verbal advice given on 3 July 1992. According to the relevant legislation, the Corporation had the responsibility of restoring an injured person to the fullest vocational and economic usefulness of which they were capable. The “guideline” set out the circumstances in which the Corporation could give such assistance. The purpose of the as...

2. Manchester Securities Limited v Auckland Council [2016] NZWHT Auckland 1 [pdf, 341 KB]

   ...the remedial work was underway. The question was when the market value of the building was affected. [54] In Burns v Argon Construction15 the High Court distinguished Pullar. In Burns an expert had been instructed and repairs carried out in response. The High Court overturned a finding by the Tribunal that the loss of value to the property had occurred at this point. While some damage was obvious, some significant problems were not and there was “mystery” about what was w...

3. [2017] NZEmpC 164 NZPSA v IRD [pdf, 519 KB]

   ...size. Inland Revenue will consult with the unions on the pay band placement for a new position to be covered by this agreement or when a proposal to change the pay band for an existing position covered by this [agreement] is presented. The response time for feedback on a proposal relating to a new position is five working days. Where a shared view cannot be reached on pay band placement the Chief Executive will, following consideration of the parties’ respective views, make...

4. [2017] NZEnvC 182 The Rise Ltd v Kaipara District Council [pdf, 3.9 MB]

   ...and prepared by Te Uri 0 Hau. • The report entitled 'Preliminary Stormwater Assessment for Proposed Subdivision Lot 30 DP 348513 Cove Road, Mangawhai' dated 18 July 2016 and prepared by Wiley Geotechnical. • The further information response from Jeremy Brabant Barrister dated 9 November 2016, incorporating: o Response from Simon Cocker Landscape Architecture, dated 9 November 2016; and o Response from Wiley Geotechnical, dated 2 November 2016. • Proposed Design Con...

5. Proprietors of Potikirua Block Incorporated v Te Kani - Lot 1 Deposited Plan 8212 [2013] Chief Judge's MB 82 (2013 CJ 82) [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...This paragraph was written in error. 8. Lastly in relation to jurisdiction, we have now received your submissions and will be in contact once Deputy Chief Judge Fox has issued directions regarding these. COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT'S SHORT RESPONSE TO THE APPLICANT'S COMMENTS ON THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9. On 18 April the Court received a letter from Counsel for the Respondent's containing a "short response" to the Applicant's comment. A copy of this...

6. Witana v Tau - Omapere Taraire E (2019) 191 Taitokerau MB 1 (191 TTK 1) [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...Act 1956 and the Reservation Regulations have to be reached and the Court must consider whether there is any positive defence or reasonable excuse for unsatisfactory performance. [19] In Rameka v Hall the Court of Appeal held:4 [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) T...

7. [2021] NZEnvC 009 Goodwin v Wellington City Council [pdf, 2.1 MB]

   GOODWIN v WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT WELLINGTON I MUA I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA Decision No. [2021] NZEnvC 9 IN THE MATTER of an appeal under s 120 of Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN D GOODWIN, F CLOSE, P OLVER & C HORROCKS (ENV-2020-WLG-000007) Appellants AND WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL Respondent AND WELLINGTON ZIPLINE ADVENTURES LIMITED Applicant Court: Environment Judge B P Dwyer Environment C

8. [2016] NZEmpC 158 Kidd v Beaumont [pdf, 460 KB]

   ...remuneration and about the liability of her and her husband and/or their Trust if the Labour Inspector’s conclusions about the Kidds’ employment status, and the Beaumonts’ liabilities to them, were correct. The combination of these two responses by Mrs Beaumont to Mr Kidd’s dissatisfaction with their working arrangements coloured, and in many ways triggered, the events which followed. [33] There are disputed and confusing accounts of how Mr Kidd’s working relati...

9. [2017] NZEmpC 39 ALA v ITE [pdf, 317 KB]

   ...which were the subject of confidentiality obligations to ALA, as referred to in the compliance order. [51] Turning to the complaint lodged with the Psychologists’ Board, I make the following findings: a) There is no dispute that ITE was responsible for lodging the complaint and its associated background document with the Board on 25 October 2016. b) There was thereby publishing and communicating of confidential information. c) Included was information about the employment...

10. [2024] NZIACDT 17 – LB v Luv (23 May 2024) [pdf, 298 KB]

    ...handwritten file note of the discussion, Ms Luv recorded certain matters under the heading “Advice”: • Client to consider work experience will be complex and carries risk. • Client to ensure pay rate meets market rates. • Client to ensure job responsibilities are skilled. [7] There was a telephone discussion between the complainant and Ms Luv on 26 October 2022. In a file note made by Ms Luv, she recorded: 3 Discussed questions about the contract and related documen...