Search Results

1. R Singh v Kumar [2011] NZIACDT 34 (21 October 2011) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...from the Authority and the Complainant. Whether or not they make submissions, the Adviser may provide submissions on penalty. [48] Should the Adviser have a submission regarding inability to pay a penalty, that submission is to be supported by a statement of assets and liabilities and particulars of income and outgoings. [49] The timetable for submissions will be as follows: [49.1] The Authority and the Complainant are to make any submissions within 10 working days of the issue of th...

2. AX v ZA LCRO 113 / 2010 (18 February 2011) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...made, and the nature of the relationship with a dealer in the [overseas]. 2 [5] Prior to this, the Applicant had visited New Zealand in May 2005, when he had been introduced by YZ to the Respondent. The Applicant alleges that as a result of statements made at that meeting, he had formed the view that the Respondent was to provide oversight for the operation and represent the mutual interests of the two partners. [6] That view was reinforced by subsequent correspondence dated...

3. LCRO 113/2013 AB v EF (3 August 2017) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...did not know this it can only be proof that he is grossly incompetent. If he knew the matter was not commercially viable then the only honest thing for him to do was to decline the work or at the very least in terms of the best practice asked for a statement signed by all three trustees of the [CD Trust] (the Trust) to the effect that we had no objection to squandering the Trust’s funds … [36] It is not clear what Mr AB means by “commercially viable” in his initial corresponden...

4. Hautapu - Kopuatarakihi 1C2B2 (2004) 159 Gisborne MB 96 (159 GIS 96) [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...paper of the sentence "I also understand that the Maori Tl'llstee may resign as responsible tl'llstee if the majority of owners vote against Anal/ra as lessee." In my view, it was inappropriate for the Maori Tmstee to add such a statement on the postal voting form . It should not have been included and as it could amount to improper interference with the consultative process. It is certainly not authorised by the tmst order and is probably contrary to what might be term...

5. Randell - Omahu 4C4 (2020 ) 86 Takitimu MB 219 (86 TKT 219) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...to give evidence against Mr Randell. He confirmed the version of events as relayed by Mr Kemp and Ms Thompson. In short, that he had been evicted from the land by Mr Randell who had been difficult, obstructive and untruthful, especially in his statements to the Court. [16] Mr Thompson confirmed that, he would reconsider leasing the land, but only on condition that he no longer had to deal with Mr Randell. Te Ture The Law [17] Section 240 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993...

6. [2024] NZEnvC 237 Mangawhai Matters Incorporated v Kaipara District Council [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...Court: Environment Judge J A Smith sitting alone under s 279 of the Act Last case event: 25 September 2024 Date of Order: 1 October 2024 Date of Issue: 1 October 2024 _________________________________________________________________ CONSENT DETERMINATION _________________________________________________________________ A: Under section 279(1)(b) of the Resource Management Act 1991, the Environment Court, by consent, orders that: 2 (1) The PPC83: The Rise Limited pro...

7. [2021] NZREADT 40 – Beath (29 July 2021) [pdf, 389 KB]

   ...roofing work on the property. He also asked if there were any “other important disclosures we should know of as a buyer”. [10] Mr Kemp’s response provided information as to re-piling, re-wiring, plumbing and roofing work, and included a statement that “the partition wall between properties is of brick construction as per the era of the home”. Mr Kemp recommended that Mr Beath obtain a builder’s report on the property which would “give you a good overview” as to...

8. [2020] NZEmpC 141 H and C v RPW [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...8 An Employee v An Employer [2007] ERNZ 295 (EmpC) at [9]. 9 Almond v Read [2017] NZSC 80, [2017] 1 NZLR 801. 10 At [38](d). [23] In Freeborn v Sfizio Ltd,11 when analysing the Almond v Read statements regarding the merits, Judge Corkill stated as follows: [22] The Supreme Court also examined the extent to which the issue of merits may be relevant when leave is sought. It referred to three particular problems. First, issues

9. [2019] NZCAA 13 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...trade [36] I cannot find factual support for Customs’ view that trade or promotional discounts provided to its customers link with the transfer pricing credit. The evidence relating to the arm’s-length sales was partly provided in an agreed statement of fact, and otherwise from the appellant’s general manager. The essential facts are: [36.1] The sales are from the appellant, which is a subsidiary of the worldwide producer and distributor of a nutritional product. The first s...

10. Hawke's Bay Standards Committee v Clarkson [2014] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 258 KB]

    ...time to provide some more material to the Court. [46] The matter was adjourned and eventually set down for hearing on 29 March 2011. At the conclusion of that hearing on 29 March 2011, the Court directed Ms Clarkson to provide relevant bank statements, evidence of wage PAYE, and ACC expenses, receipts for other expenses, and evidence that GST had been paid, all relating to the grazing arrangements on the PM Trust block. Ms Clarkson did not comply with those directions of the C...