Search Results

1. LLC v ICQ [2012] NZIACDT 10 (28 March 2012) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...permit that expired on 20 February 2010. On this occasion there was no engagement beyond initial discussion. [8.4] On 30 April 2010 Ms LLC had a further meeting with Ms ICQ, who was concerned as her permit was expiring that day, and had received no response to an application for a visitor’s permit she had filed some two weeks earlier. The meeting was after 5:00 pm on 30 April 2010, and it was a Friday so nothing could be done to address Ms LLC’s position before her permit expired....

2. TG v Tangilanu [2012] NZIACDT 17 (8 May 2012) [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...applied for suppression of her name and identifying details. However, she has not advanced any reason that can sensibly be weighed in favour of restricting publication. On the contrary, she has had a finding made against her that she has been responsible for serious professional failings, and it is in the public interest that the decisions relating to that be published in full. [39] Accordingly, the decision upholding the complaint and the present decision will be published in the...

3. Waxman v Pal (Costs) [2017] NZHRRT 3 [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...focused on the claim for lost wages. As it is clear such claim is not ordinarily considered to be a disbursement for the purpose of a costs award we do not 3 intend addressing this issue further. The main points made by Dr Waxman (and our response) follow: [10.1] None of the defence witnesses were summonsed to attend the hearing. This, however, is irrelevant. It is not a precondition to an award of witness expenses that the witness first be served with a witness summons. [10...

4. [2017] NZEmpC 64 Prasad v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...employment status; 2.2. The defendant has requested that the documents be provided and, in the event the documents have ceased to be in the plaintiffs’ possession, custody or control, the date that occurred, but have received no satisfactory response to those requests; 2.3. Appearing in the affirmation of Marie Lynne Park filed in support of this application. [9] The plaintiffs filed a notice of opposition to the applications. The grounds upon which the plaintiffs o...

5. Hawke’s Bay Standards Committee v Dender [2017] NZLCDT 39 [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...date when this was agreed with the Standards Committee, because the matter has taken some months to reach a hearing through no fault of the practitioner. When put with the other orders we propose to make, we consider it represents a proportionate response to the seriousness of this conduct, and properly reflects the disapproval of the lawyers’ professional body. [25] The following orders were made at the hearing: 1. A censure was imposed in the terms set out in Appendix I to th...

6. Joint Submissions for Air New Zealand Limited and The Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand Incorporated (dated 13 April 2018) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...gkchappell@xtra.co.nz mailto:gkchappell@xtra.co.nz HKI-101074-1-1511-V1 Introduction 1. These submissions are filed on behalf of Air New Zealand Limited (ANZL) and the Board of Airline Representatives New Zealand Incorporated (BARNZ) in response to the Court’s direction of 18 March 2018. 2. ANZL and BARNZ wish to be heard jointly at the judicial conference on 18 April 2018. Summary of position 3. ANZL’s and BARNZ’s position was expressed through a joint m...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 134 Director General of Conservation v Invercargill City Council [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...issued its interim decision - [2018] NZEnvC 8 - on 1 June 2018, reserving leave for the parties to address the court on the issues raised in part 5 of the Reasons provided the issue was raised with the Registrar by 22 June 2018. There have been responses from the parties. [2] The Registrar has referred to me the memoranda of: • Mr P Anderson for The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated ("Forest and Bird") dated 14 June 2018; • Mr M D M...

8. [2017] NZEmpC 5 Edminstin v Sanford Limited [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...the order will be one that permits Mr James to be called despite the plaintiff having closed his case. [15] Although the plaintiff has been successful in obtaining these orders, Mr Katz acknowledged frankly that the need to do so was entirely the responsibility of the plaintiff and for which he has expressed regret to the Court and to the defendant. In these circumstances, it would be wrong for the plaintiff to benefit from an order for costs attendant upon the hearing of these app...

9. Dooley v Canterbury District Health Board (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 34 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...had made a decision not to continue with his claim in which case he was to send an email confirming the withdrawal. The Secretary advised Mr Dooley that failing such advice it was likely both DHBs would apply to have the proceedings struck out. No response was received from Mr Dooley. [17] On 15 June 2018 the Secretary by email advised the CDHB and SCDHB that any intended strike-out application was to be filed and served by 6 July 2018. [18] On 4 July 2018 the defendants filed a joint...

10. BL v DQ [2020] NZDT 1303 (12 November 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

    ...stationary. The placement and nature of the damage support this, showing a single impact point on the angle expected for the car as described, and showing that BL had not driven in to DQ, but the reverse. 10. For these reasons, I find that DQ is responsible for the costs as claimed. Referee: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 J Robertshawe Date: 12 November 2020 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can app...