Search Results

1. 2021-06-15 ORC - MOC - Submissions in response to Amicus Curiae memorandum [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...8140 DX WX11179 Tel +64 3 379 7622 Fax +64 379 2467 Solicitor: P A C Maw / M A Mehlhopt (philip.maw@wynnwilliams.co.nz / michelle.mehlhopt@wynnwilliams.co.nz) 1 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT 1 These legal submissions are filed in response to the Memorandum of Amicus Curiae dated 19 May 2021 in which Dr Royden Somerville QC addressed the following three questions posed by the Court in relation to deemed permits and rights of priority: (a) Are deemed permits a creat...

2. OIA-97445.pdf [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...& Social Media Manager Joe Locke at media@justice.govt.nz. I am satisfied there are no other public interest considerations that render it desirable to make the information withheld under section 9 available. If you are not satisfied with my response to your request, you have the right to complain to the Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the Act. The Ombudsman may be contacted by email at info@ombudsman.parliament.nz. Yours sincerely Ryan Orange Deputy Director, Sector...

3. E v IAG New Zealand Ltd (No 4) [2022] CEIT-2019-0013 [pdf, 535 KB]

   ...raised or discussed during the conferral. IAG objects to these paragraphs on the basis that the rates and measure were, it says, raised during the conferral. IAG’s position is that the challenges to the rates and measures were included in responses to Mr Whyte’s costing of 30 April 2022, which included: (a) costings provided by Ms van Eeden on 13 and 29 April 2022: (b) a joint memorandum of counsel dated on 6 May 2022, which listed 10 items in dispute; and (c) the challeng...

4. [2022] NZREADT 28 - Harris (14 December 2022) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...the case, the Registrar “must” cancel his licence, as s 54(d) stipulates. [68] It is unfortunate that the Authority’s communications were not seen by Mr Harris until 24 May 2022 because of his personal circumstances. It is Mr Harris’ responsibility to ensure he receives and reviews communications from the Authority. He does not dispute that the communications were sent to his email address registered with the Authority. [69] The prohibition on renewing the licence fo...

5. [2022] NZACC 107 - Carmichael v ACC (7 June 2022) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...opinion was incapacity for work on 28 August 2017 causally related to the index event and would such likely lead to the client being unable to engage in any substantial preemployment as a builder? It may be seen that the sprain incident was likely responsible for work limitation for two to three months. Beyond that time symptom expression and pain limitation relates to degenerative rotator cuff disease unrelated to accident injury. Relevant law [27] Section 20(2)(a) of the Act...

6. Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Collins [2022] NZLCDT 22 (30 June 2022) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...were represented by Ms Seddon, a solicitor in Mr Collins’ firm and under his supervision. Her primary contact person for all aspects of the sale was Mrs M. Mr Collins, notwithstanding his lack of direct involvement, accepts that he must take responsibility for actions of his staff member as if they were his own. [33] Mr Collins lodged a notice of claim against the Carterton property, on behalf of Mrs W. At settlement time, Mr Collins was refusing to discharge the Notice of Cl...

7. [2021 NZACC 149 – Garside v ACC (30 September 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...Garside confirmed his evidence at review that his assailant knocked him out but he could not recollect the details “whether he kicked me or jumped on me I don’t know”. It is clear Mr Garside’s evidence at review is consistent with his responses to Mr Evans. [28] Mr Garside also mentioned the knee problems he suffered from a mountain bike crash and, at hearing, another crash in a motor vehicle. However, there is no available evidence of the claims made for these accidents....

8. National Standards Committee 1 v Palmer [2023] NZLCDT 13 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...matter progressed, in fact it was the first three charges which absorbed the bulk of the time and evidence and we do not consider that charges four and five added a great deal of costs to the proceedings. [67] Now that Mr Palmer has accepted responsibility for his conduct in charges one to three, it is in our view, unacceptable for the profession to meet more than a modest proportion of the costs. [68] We consider that the practitioner ought to pay 80 per cent of the Standards...

9. M Ltd v KC [2023] NZDT 26 (2 February 2023) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Auction 7 Items were sold to KC on an ‘as is where is’ basis in accordance with M Ltd’s terms and conditions (“the Terms”), and M Ltd did not provide any warranties either express or implied in relation to such items and M Ltd is therefore not responsible for KC’s losses. XT says that M Ltd did not warrant any of the items purchased by KC or make any representations about quality or authenticity. 17. I am satisfied that, before KC purchased the Auction 1 to 6 Items and the...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 76 Al-Bustanji and Jenner v Corrections Association of New Zealand Inc  [pdf, 257 KB]

    ...unnecessary, overly formal and causing delay. They implied that taking a formal approach and putting things in writing could have negative consequences. They reiterated their desire for a “friendly constructive casual meeting”. [23] Mr du Plessis’ response indicated a willingness to meet but raised logistical difficulties with getting Mr Jenner released from work. On 12 and 13 March 2024, emails were exchanged that showed a willingness by all to try and meet. Unfortunately...