Search Results

1. Reid v New Zealand Law Society [2023] NZLCDT 7 (24 March 2023) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...these purposes is set out in s 55 of the Act. The section is added to this decision as an appendix. In the recent case of Stanley,3 the Supreme Court took the opportunity to modernise4 the statutory language. The following paragraphs set out that statement of the position. [6] In Stanley5, the Supreme Court considered the purposes of the statutory scheme and the consequent obligations of lawyers in these terms: [6] A wide range of professions have good character and competence re...

2. D (D G Family Trust) v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0037 [pdf, 605 KB]

   IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0037-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN C F D, R D G AND D R S (AS TRUSTEES OF THE D G FAMILY TRUST Applicants AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Respondent AND MAX CONTRACTS LIMITED Second Respondent AND MAX EQ LIMITED Third Respondent AND ORANGE H MANAGEMENT LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP AND IN LIQUIDATION) Fourt

3. [2024] NZEnvC 213 Remediation (NZ) Limited v Taranaki Regional Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...we approve them (or modify them). [30] For each of the topics below we briefly summarise the status of the site from data presented in the evidence in July 2022 and any updated information since that date, and then focus on the joint witness statements(“JWS”) produced before and during the hearing in November – December 2023 as informing relevant aspects of evidence in chief and rebuttal (with or without modification as the evidence moved forward), and the evidence from hot-...

4. Teina Pora compensation claim quantum report [pdf, 9 MB]

   SECOND REPORT FOR MINISTER OF JUSTICE ON COMPENSATION CLAIM BY TEINA ANTIHONY PORA BY HON RODNEY HANSEN CNZM QC TABLE OF CONTENTS (1) INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 3 (2) APPROACH TO DETERMINING COMPENSATION ....................................................... 5 (3) NON-PECUNIARY LOSS FOR LOSS OF LIBERTY ................................................ ; .......... 8 (4) OTHER NON-PECUNIAR...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 113 Richora Group Ltd v Cheng [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...odds on a number of matters, including numerous facts and what can be drawn from key events. It is not necessary to resolve each of these issues. It is, however, necessary to traverse the background in some detail in order to put Ms Cheng’s claims of unjustified constructive dismissal and unpaid wages, and the company’s response to these claims, into context. The facts [5] Mr and Mrs Li run Richora, a company which specialises in exporting manuka honey, predominantly to the...

6. [2021] NZACC 176 - Renton v ACC (5 November 2021) [pdf, 728 KB]

   ...JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Abuse of Process; Res Judicata; Issue Estoppel] ____________________________________________________________________ [1] This is an appeal against a decision of the respondent dated 15 June 2018. In rejecting a claim for bilateral optic nerve atrophy secondary to elevated intracranial pressure, ACC’s decision of 15 June 2018 said: We’ve already considered a previous claim you made for the same injury, which we’ve already declined. [2] The...

7. [2019] NZEmpC 49 Mathews v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 449 KB]

   ...that each such document was setting out only minimum core terms which underpinned individual employment arrangements. [78] In those documents that applied after the enactment of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act), there were express statements that IECs negotiated under the Employment Contracts Act 1991 were deemed to contain additional terms and conditions of employment for the purposes of s 61 of the Act. [79] The retiring gratuity provisions of Dr Mathews’ IEC acco...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 209 The Pulp & Paper Industry Council of the Manufacturer& Construction Workers Union v Norske Skog Tasman Ltd [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...partial demanning under the Collective and the Policy. It therefore denied that it is breaching either the Collective or the Policy or that it is unjustifiably putting the employees employed on PM3 at risk of forced redundancy. [16] The defendant claimed that it is entitled, by virtue of the provisions in cl 3 of the Policy, to define “the work area” following discussion with the relevant union and has done so with the principles set out in the introduction to the Policy in mind...

9. LCRO 247/2015 TL v CS (19 July 2017) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...for repayment of the loan was made by Mr TL’s colleague who reminded Mr CS that the firm had acted for him on unrelated matters some years previously and asked him to advise if he had any objections to the firm acting against him.1 [6] Mr TL claims that three months later, in response to attempts to serve him with a statement of claim, Mr CS phoned him to advise that he did not object. Mr CS disputes that he made this call. On 7 November 2014 and in subsequent correspondence,...

10. Suresh v Elizabeth [2019] NZIACDT 30 (10 May 2019) [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...explain the delay. While considerable information and documentation was required from the complainant, she does not identify any delays by him in providing it. He appears to have been prompt in responding to requests from the staff. [70] It was claimed by the staff on 30 September 2016 that there had been technical issues with NZQA’s portal, but these are unlikely to have been for long. [71] Ms Elizabeth does not expressly answer the allegation concerning delay in completing t...