Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 207 Martin v Solar Bright Ltd (in liquidation) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...non-de novo hearing. 6 See, for example, Jerram v Franklin Veterinary Services (1977) Ltd [2001] ERNZ 157 (EmpC); Xtreme Dining Ltd, (T/A Think Steel) v Dewar [2016] NZEmpC 136, [2016] ERNZ 628. [9] Paragraph [76] was the Authority’s statement of the purpose of a penalty relying on Xu v McIntosh.7 In paragraph [77], the Authority stated that Mr Martin should pay a penalty for his failure to comply with his obligations as a Solar Bright employee and to send a message of de...

2. KQ & WQ v EN & MN [2021] NZDT 1439 (27 April 2021) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...scheme had 2 driveway options. EN and MN say KQ and WQ wanted to move the driveway in order to have an exclusive single use driveway and that they agreed subject to the proviso that KQ and WQ meet the additional cost. They submitted two written statements from third parties supporting their position. KQ and WQ say that EN and MN were informed that the existing driveway in the scheme plan was not compliant with engineering requirements and it was them that sought the change. 13. KQ a...

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

   ...started to run before the applicant was aware the determination had been issued and provided with a copy. [39] Section 198 was amended by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Amendment Bill 2010. When the Bill was first introduced, the general policy statement set out the explanation for amending s 198 of the Act.11 (a) New section 198(b) ensures that those applications must be lodged within a 30-working-day period commencing on the day after a copy or notice of the decision or action is b...

4. LCRO 69/2020 CX v DW (21 July 2021) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...national superannuation payments. This order was of minimal assistance to achieve payment of the debt. However, the hearing had another purpose, which was to ascertain what assets Mr EV had which could be pursued by Ms CX.19 Mr EV’s financial statement included an interest in a “family home”. That was the property at [Redacted]. [37] At some stage, Mr DW employed a law clerk, Mr FU.20 Mr DW delegated the work to obtain a charging order over the property to Mr FU. Mr DW...

5. s-7-Report-Returning-Offenders-Management-and-Information-Amendment-Bill.pdf [pdf, 678 KB]

   ...released from prison overseas and have limited connection with New Zealand, other than citizenship, or support networks here. 38. The Bill’s limitation of s 26(2) of the NZBORA is therefore demonstrably justified under s 5. 15 Regulatory Impact Statement Management of Offenders Returning to New Zealand, available at https://www.treasury.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2015-10/ris-justice-mro-nov15.pdf Natural justice 39. The High Court in G v Commissioner of Police held that the appro...

6. KI & GI v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 152 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...under s25 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 as I was satisfied that this was appropriate despite him not being provided with notice of the claim, because he is the owner of the Motor Vehicle and has paid the Car Mechanic Invoice. GI provided a written statement but did not attend the hearing. I appointed KI as the representative of GI. Issues 7. The issues I need to determine are: (a) Were the CV Joints not of acceptable quality and/or not reasonably fit of purpose, and/or were...

7. Appearing in court - what you need to know

   ...behalf and cross-examining Crown witnesses, among other things. The appointment of an amicus, and the extent to which he or she may file documents and present arguments, are at the discretion of the court. The appointment of an amicus does not require the consent of the parties to the proceeding. Dress tidily Everyone appearing in court should wear appropriate clothing. You should dress as smartly and tidily as you can for court. Visit the court If you would like to familiarise yourself with th...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court >
   3. Going to court without a lawyer >
   4. Representing yourself in a criminal case in the High Court

8. Flight Senior – Waipapa 1D 2B 3B (2014) 316 Aotea MB 3 (316 AOT 3) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...owner of the dwelling. [22] Even so, it has been said that whether the house is a chattel or a fixture directly affects the question of legal ownership. On this issue the Māori Appellate Court in Bidois – Te Puna 154D3B2B made the following statements: 9 [58] …Where an owner builds on multiply owned Māori land (especially following the grant of an occupation order) it is preferable that ownership of the dwelling is determined by the Court under section 18(1)(a) to avoid...

9. AZ v YX LCRO 175 / 2010 (25 March 2011) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...unless the matter could be handled with due competence and without undue interference by the pressure of work or other obligations. Instructions for work which is outside the competence of a practitioner should be either declined or, with the consent of the client, referred to another practitioner”. [24] If, to comply with these obligations, ZC needed to involve ZB to the extent that the cost was going to be $850 per hour, then the Body Corporate members had the right to know tha...

10. Sherard v Devereux and others - Otakanini Māori Reservatio (Haranui Marae) (2016) 140 Taitokerau MB 60 (140 TTK 60) [pdf, 243 KB]

    ...had to consider whether a member of the committee of management for the Mangaroa Incorporation was entitled to withdraw his resignation as a committee member. Judge Harvey found that the resignation in that case could only be withdrawn with the consent of the remaining members of the committee. [29] While that decision concerned a Māori Incorporation, rather than a Māori Reservation Trust, it nevertheless provides some guidance for the purposes of this application. [30] There...