Search Results

1. T Ltd v CS Ors [2021] NZDT 1552 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...and UT agreed (on behalf of UT Ltd) to pay for the Trailer. 16. Given that UT worked for both C Ltd and UT Ltd, and the transfer of the invoice into the name of UT Ltd was done for the convenience of UT and CS, I am satisfied that UT Ltd took responsibility for the Contract when it agreed to pay for the Trailer. This means that UT Ltd were subject to all the terms of the Contract which included T Ltd’ right to claim interest (cl 12 of the terms and conditions). However, I consider...

2. Supplementary Order Paper for the Sexual Violence Legislation Bill [PDF, 208 KB]

   ...delayed due to COVID-19 and had its second reading in February 2021. The SOP proposes: 1 Law Commission The Second Review of the Evidence Act 2006 – Te Arotake Tuarua i te Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R142, 13 March 2019); Law Commission The Justice Response to Victims of Sexual Violence (NZLC R136, 7 December 2015). 2 Also attached is a copy of the letter you wrote to the Justice Committee after it raised concerns about the consistency of the Bill with s 25(e) and (f) of the Bill of R...

3. LCRO 100/2020 FT v D and O CM (9 June 2020) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...[18] Review Officers are appointed by the Minister of Justice, following consultation with the New Zealand Law Society.6 [19] Review Officers are appointed under a ministerial warrant. [20] A stated purpose of the Act is to provide for a more responsive regulatory regime in relation to lawyers and conveyancers.7 [21] The regulatory regime established under the Act provides for a three-tier approach to the investigation of conduct complaints. [22] Disciplinary investigations which...

4. EF v G Ltd NZDT [2021] 1530 (24 February 2021) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...Debitsuccess Contract is based on “entitlement” to use and not on actual use of the services…” Clause 11: “Reasonable change of location of not more than 4 km, or change of ownership or the name of the Facility does not absolve the customer of responsibility under this contract.” 15. The contract terms therefore provided that the price of $5,106.16 was to be paid within the minimum term of 83 weeks (expiring in or around 2 April 2017) (Term) and that the Certificate in F...

5. The Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Bill [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...groups, in particular for Māori. The health system principles in clause 7, which are mandated to guide the Ministry's and other health entities' functions under the Act, predominantly focus on improving the health system's support, responsiveness, empowerment, and outcomes for Māori. 23. Further to this emphasis, the Bill: a. establishes the Authority (cl 17) and the Hauora Māori Advisory Committee to advise the Minister of Health (cl 83) b. gives recognition to...

6. NE v QB Ltd [2022] NZDT 135 (6 September 2022) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...agreed that the finance documents for the [N Vehicle] would be in E’s name. He says that there was a 3 month period in which no payments were due under the finance agreement. He says that the intention was that by the end of that period NE would be responsible for the payments under the finance agreement (which were around $150.00 per week). 9. NE says that not long after he took possession of the [N Vehicle] his relationship with E ended in difficult circumstances and NE convicted...

7. Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements) [2022] NZACC 152 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Ms Howard also contended it was unfair for the Corporation not to have made weekly compensation entitlements and that no notice of review rights had been given. 5 [16] Also, in October 2021, Ms Howard sought review of the Corporation’s response of 14 September 2021 as being a reviewable decision. Ms Howard sought payment for the full period of suspension and contended that the sum paid as an ex gratia settlement was amenable to review. [17] On 25 February 2022, review proc...

8. [2023] NZIACDT 3 - MT v LL (2 February 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...to support the visa application. As matters developed, it became clear that the employer either did not mean to terminate the job, or resiled from the termination once he had a chance to consider the matter again. The adviser’s instinctive response, in allowing everyone time to calm down, was correct. Crucially, the adviser did not know of the exploitation complaint. She did not therefore know that the complainant did not want to work for the employer if the visa was granted....

9. [2023] NZEmpC 47 Farrand Orchards Ltd v Tane [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...“trial”. He said this reference to the period stuck in his mind. [14] A range of other affidavits have been filed by FOL to support the proposition that this event took place on the evening of 31 March 2019. [15] Mr Tane filed an affidavit in response. After describing his transfer of effects from Auckland to Kerikeri over the weekend in question, he said he did not recall having seen or spoken to Mr Farrand on 31 March 2019, let alone attending a party on that date. He...

10. Edwards v Ross - Waikite 3A (2023) 293 Waiariki MB 110 (293 WAR 110) [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...the Council to meet with owners and beneficial owners to discuss the property. At the meeting, the buildings on the land were discussed, and the Council advised that all the buildings were non-consented. The Council advised that all owners were responsible for the buildings, and that they had to be removed within three months of the meeting. When asked what would occur if the buildings were not removed, the Council advised that an abatement notice would be issued to all owners. [13...