Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 125 Angus v Ports of Auckland Limited [pdf, 160 KB]

   ANDREW ANGUS V PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2011] NZEmpC 125 [5 October 2011] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2011] NZEmpC 125 ARC 69/11 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim reinstatement BETWEEN ANDREW ANGUS Plaintiff AND PORTS OF AUCKLAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 4 October 2011 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Simon Mitchell, counsel

2. Koria & Anor v Johnson & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 14 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...must satisfy themselves on reasonable grounds that a building complied with the Building Code. This included a duty of care in the conduct of inspections and the issue of certificates, including final CCC’s. The Act stated that where a producer statement was obtained from a product supplier or installer, the producer statement provided a reasonable basis for the council or certifier to be satisfied as to compliance. [21] The fact that the BIA told Mr Woodger that he could be...

3. [2006] NZEmpC WC 17/06 Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...extent of that hearing. At that conference Mr Gould for Mr Bryson advised the Court that Mr Bryson wished to pursue a challenge on the issue whether he had raised his personal grievance in time as well as the exceptional circumstances point. Consent was not forthcoming from Three Foot Six Ltd to bring the extra challenge out of time and therefore this application was required. [11] Mr Bryson said only when he received a copy of the first statement of claim from his solicitor on 19...

4. 2021-03-18 ORC PC7 Hearing Schedule (draft as at 17 March 2021) [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...Adjournment) Party Reference / Submission No. Name of Representative Subject (if provided) Position Evidence / Representation Questioning / Cross-Examination Tentatively scheduled for completion of expert evidence and presentation of Joint Wintness Statements Adjourn HEARING WEEK 8 (DUNEDIN) The week of Monday 24 May 2021 - Hearing Days TBC Party Reference / Submission No. Name of Representative Subject (if provided) Position Evidence / Representation Questioning / Cross-Examination NB:...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 138 Soundhomes NZ Ltd v Doughty [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...They argue that this is supported by the fact that the forensic 19 $75,236.74. 20 Air New Zealand Ltd v Commerce Commission [2007] NZCA 27, [2007] 2 NZLR 494 at [47]. accountant’s fees are claimed as special damages in the amended statement of problem filed in the Authority. They submit that these costs cannot be claimed twice. [39] The applicant says that should the expert’s fees be ordered to be paid as a disbursement, it will amend the statement of problem to r...

6. Whaanga v Niania - Anewa Block [2011] Māori Appellate Court MB 428 (2011 APPEAL 428) [pdf, 308 KB]

   ...it was a requirement of the Board of Māori Affairs‘ approval of the development scheme that the various titles be amalgamated into one title. The owners of the various blocks were consulted. Epanaia Whaanga agreed and signed the necessary consent form. In the hearing before us Mere Whaanga complained that the memorandum of 18 October 1967 referred to her father having already consented yet he did not sign the consent form until the following day. In our view, nothing turns on...

7. Tidmarsh v Glover [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...all material times an approved and registered building certifier in the Auckland area and a director of Approved Building Certifiers Limited. Robert Neil Boler approved the plans and specifications for the Claimants’ dwelling for a building consent, undertook certain inspections of the Claimants’ dwelling during the course of construction and on completion of the building works, issued a code compliance certificate in respect of all the building work undertaken pursuant to the...

8. XB & XC v A North Island Standards Committee LCRO 207-208 / 2012 (10 June 2013) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...Decision dated 18 July 2012 at [5-15]. 3 f. The sixth charge holder, the Bank of New Zealand, was to receive no funds but would receive moneys paid to the Bank by eftpos; g. The landlord was to be paid in full (as consideration for the consent to the assignment of the lease); and h. A company renting the security cameras was to be paid in full (to avoid the removal of the cameras). 10. As the settlement date approached: a. A former business associate of the...

9. LCRO 13/2019 RA v LO (23 September 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...diametrically opposing recollections of events with little other evidence to assist in forming a view as to which of those recollections, on the balance of probabilities, provides the most accurate account of what took place. [68] I have considered the statements provided by Ms RA and the information in the complaint filed by Ms RA. Both considered that Ms LO had asserted unacceptable pressure on Ms RA to sign the undertaking. [69] Ms LO records that she had met with Ms RA “sev...

10. Stephen Brown (dated 6 June 2017) [pdf, 15 MB]

    ...– and the primary coastal ridge behind Makara substantially separated the wind farm’s main receiving 16 environments from that of the adjoining coastline, which the house site sat in. As a result, little of the proposed turbine (since consented and constructed) was exposed to that site. Moreover, the prevailing winds helped to carry noise from the nearest turbine away from that residential property. 38. At Porteous Hill, the distances between the proposed turbine and al...