Search Results

1. [2019] NZREADT 56 - CAC 521 v Wright - Penalty (10 December 2019) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...5 Section 3(2)(c) of the Act. [b] Mr Wright obstructed the process of information gathering by the Committee, by failing to engage in the proceeding in any meaningful way. He failed to file a response to the charges, and he failed to assist the Tribunal by way of submissions or evidence, despite indicating that he would and being directed to do so. He attended part of the hearing but declined to provide any submissions or evidence

2. Waitangi Tribunal COVID-19 Level 2 Protocol (13 May 2020) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...appropriate. ii. Limiting the number of witnesses via the use of agreed facts. c. Raising any deficiencies with cleaning, the availability of cleaning supplies or physical distancing with the site manager immediately. Community transmission response 26. At Alert Level 2, it remains possible that a new cluster of Covid-19 community transmission may be confirmed within a location served by the Tribunal. In that event the Tribunal will rely on official advice. Steps may be taken to...

3. LCRO 11/2019 AA v ZZ (31 July 2019) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...have rectified those deficiencies in this document and its attachments. In the complaint, I referred to this material by internet links to pages on the blog which detailed the evidence but it seems this was legally not acceptable. Mr ZZ in his ‘Response to the complaint’ dated 31 August 2018 …regarding the ‘illegal actions’ of Mr ZZ, states that it is difficult to supply a response without knowing the specific basis on which the complaint is made. These are all on the websi...

4. [2018] NZSSAA 26 (28 May 2018) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...evidence focussed on the issue of whether or not the Ministry is entitled to recover the overpayment. [5] After we heard from the appellant, we asked why he decided to withdraw that part of the appeal against the decision to deduct the UKSP. The response was because agents of the Ministry told the appellant that he “couldn’t beat s 70”. [6] We expressed concern that the appellant was persuaded to withdraw his appeal because he and his wife felt convinced by statements mad...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 130 Kocaturk v Zara’s Turkish Ltd [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...concerned that they could return to Turkey at any time, including because Mr Kocatürk is currently in breach of his immigration visa and might be apprehended and deported. She also alleges that Mr Kocatürk has a history of leaving a country to avoid responsibility. In support of that statement, Mrs Kokcu gives hearsay evidence based on a discussion she says she had with Mr Kocatürk’s mother. [7] Mrs Kokcu points to her understanding that Mr Kocatürk gambles regularly. S...

6. [2018] NZSSAA 56 (31 October 2018) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...appellant contests the quantum of the overpayments, but provided neither a 52 week or weekly calculation to demonstrate there was no overpayment. [16] The appellant said he and his wife complied with reporting his wife’s income. However, family responsibilities sometimes made that difficult to do as promptly as they would have liked. He said the Ministry’s systems were not ideal, and there were variations in practice among staff. For example, some frontline staff would take report...

7. [2018] NZSSAA 58 (19 November 2018) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...cousin and the person who provided the training she undertook overseas. [19] In his statement, Mr Perry gave a detailed description of what he said is the appellant’s severe ADHD disability. He described her behaviour, functioning ability, response to medication, ability to work and his role in managing her life. He concluded by stating that the appellant is clinically disabled and was out of the country “training for the vocation I sincerely believe she will be successful...

8. FB and QB v HD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1445 (10 November 2020) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...frustration and its consequences has been codified in ss 61 to 66 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (the Act). The doctrine applies in situations where, because of some event (sometimes called a force majeure event) for which neither party is responsible, the very basis of the contract is destroyed so that the venture that the parties now find themselves committed to is radically different from that contemplated. If so, the contract is forthwith discharged and all money paid unde...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 72 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...upheld. Costs may be sought [21] If Mr Stock seeks costs on this judgment, he is to file and serve an additional memorandum within 14 days of the date of this judgment. Mr Lawton then has 21 days within which to file and serve a memorandum in response to any such 8 Jackson v Enterprise Motor Group (North Shore) Ltd [2004] 2 ERNZ 424 at [17]. 9 Above n 8. memorandum filed by Mr Stock as well as to Mr Stock’s memorandum in respect of costs on the substantive matter,...

10. HM and X Ltd v TM [2021] NZDT 1638 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...assumed that HU would have seen him, as had the driver to HU’s right, who had stopped after briefly moving forward. The issue [5] I must decide whether HU and X LTD have proved that TM was negligent in the circumstances. QL considers that TM was responsible for the collision because HU had a green light and, although he perhaps had no visibility because of the car to his right, his decision to drive into the intersection was a reasonable one. The law CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order...