Search Results

1. Darling v CAC 20002 & Penrose [2014] NZREADT 46 [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...Penrose had taken the time to contact me, his client, before he took it upon himself to speak to the purchaser, I could have easily clarified the position. I would have explained that while the tenant had, in June 2011, requested a reduced rental, our response had been to dispute that request and to clearly specify that the rent properly payable under the lease was $125,0000 per annum plus GST. There had, therefore, been no rent review. 53. I would have further explained to David tha...

2. Smith v ACC [2010] NZACA 6 [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...decompression. [10] On 19 March 1990 the Corporation wrote to the appellant to advise that in order to continue to pay ERC, it required evidence to demonstrate that the appellant was suffering a loss. [11] The Corporation received a response from Howarth & Howarth, the appellant’s accountants, dated 22 March 1990. The accountants confirmed that they had been the appellant’s accountants for the past two years. The accountants further advised that since the appell...

3. BW v DJ LCRO 9 / 2013 (20 September 2013) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...beyond her usual areas of 4 Above n1. 7 expertise. Nonetheless, it was obvious at that point that it was necessary to obtain information from the bank, and either BW or DJ would have to be responsible for obtaining that information. DJ does not appear to have fully appreciated the professional risk that she took in relying on BW to obtain the information. [30] If BW’s enquiries turned out to be inadequate, DJ had implicitly...

4. Landon v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 70 [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...construction. In Mr Matthews‟ brief he said that Mr Middleton was on site more than he was and that Mr Middleton put up the framing, prepared and nailed the fibre cement sheets, constructed the deck and installed the windows. Mr Matthews disputed responsibility for the inadequately formed sheets. He also said that the horizontal and vertical control joints were not required but that, if they were, this defect should have been picked up by the plasterer and the Council. Mr Ma...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 9 Lyttelton Port Co Ltd v Arthurs [pdf, 297 KB]

   ...on to ask the general practitioner for some more details around the duration and cost of counselling and said the company would welcome a meeting with the general practitioner and Mr Arthurs to discuss this in person. LPC says it did not get a response to that letter. Mr Arthurs gave evidence that he understood that the doctor had attempted to contact LPC without success. [13] The next significant matter was that in November 2014 LPC amended its Drug and Alcohol Impairment Fre...

6. [2017] NZEmpC 130 ALA v ITE [pdf, 402 KB]

   ...increase in the maximum sum available for a fine from $10,000 under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 to $40,000 under the current Act. [142] It was also stated that the power had to be exercised in context. That context was an enforcement response for non-compliance in a manner akin to contempt. [143] Coming on to describe considerations which would be relevant to the amount of a fine, the Court of Appeal stated that the primary purpose of the sub-section was to secure compl...

7. Berry v Rondel LCRO 130 / 2011 (2 February 2012) [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...should be referred to the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. The factors that mitigate against that are:- 1) Mr Rondel has acknowledged the shortcomings in the service provided to Ms Berry, although I must say that his response to this review application has differed markedly to his responses to the Standards Committee. 2) Despite Ms Berry’s assertions, I have not found that Mr Rondel has been dishonest or fraudulent. 3) His stated desire to assist...

8. Marine and Coastal Area - part-2 Interests in land and structures [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...coastal marine area as part of the CMCA. Previously, section 237A required such land to vest in the Crown, but the requirement was subject to any rule in a district plan or any resource consent that provided otherwise. A territorial authority has responsibility for ensuring compliance (refer section 223(2) of the RMA). RECLAIMED LAND Introduction Reclaimed land is defined in the Act and basically means permanent land formed from land that was previously below the line of mean high-...

9. Edwards v Tatere – Mangatainoka No 1BC No 2C1 (2018) 186 Waiariki MB 44 (186 WAR 44) [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...made on the current material before the Court. [6] Submissions were subsequently received from the Edwards whānau and Te Aute Trust Board (TATB) requesting that a decision on costs now be made based on the submissions previously filed. A response has also been received from the Tatere children, 1 Edwards v Tatere – Mangatainoka No 1BC No 2C (2012) 15 Takitimu MB 204 (15 TKT 204). 2 196 Napier MB 286 (196 NA 286). 3 Tatere ...

10. Maruera v Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru (Taranaki) Trust (2018) 385 Aotea MB 7 (385 AOT 7) [pdf, 402 KB]

    ...found the doctrine of res judicata applied and the trustees were prevented from re litigating the proceedings in the manner sought. The Court also found that if a party is dissatisfied with the decision of the Māori Land Court the appropriate response is to appeal to a higher court, rather than going to the court below to revisit its own decision. [12] In summary, Ms Hughes submits that the Court’s use of its inherent jurisdiction does not permit it to act as an appellate body i...