Search Results

1. CAC20002 v Daji [2015] NZREADT 14 [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...sentencing indication, but we fine the defendant $2000, to be paid to the Registrar of the Authority at Wellington within 20 working days of this decision. [32] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ M...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 245 Bracewell v Richmond Services Ltd [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...destruction or non-alteration as she fears. The defendant’s preparedness to agree to a stay on that condition has been consistently held out to the plaintiff but rejected by her. [22] Although the law on stays of execution of remedies pending appeals has from time to time set out a number of tests to be applied, the overall consideration is where the interests of justice lie until the Court can finally determine the proceeding. [23] I am satisfied that the interests of justice in...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 221 Bali v SRG Holdings Ltd [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...action on the part of the defendants have been filed. [19] One thing which emerged during the course of the hearing is that Mr Bali currently has no permit to remain in New Zealand but is entitled to stay here at the moment as a result of pending appeals in respect of decisions made on his residence application. Apparently, the outcome of these proceedings in the Employment Court may be material to the outcome of those other proceedings. A belated attempt was made by the defenda...

4. Tank Trust v Auckland Council [2013] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...justified pursuant to s 91(1)(a). 6 Transcript, 18 December 2012 at page 18. 7 Body Corporate 170989 v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 35. 8 This decision is under appeal. Page | 9 Did the claimants incur unnecessary costs as a result of the Council’s actions? [25] The Council contends that it was always necessary for the claimants to instruct either Mr Flay or someone else with similar ex...

5. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 48 [pdf, 101 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2011-100-000018 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 48 BETWEEN SLAVE TOMOV, LILJANA TOMOVO AND DAVENPORTS WEST TRUSTEE COMPANY (NO 1) LIMITED Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND MODERN HOMES DEVELOPMENT LIMITED Second Respondent AND ANDREW THOMAS Third Respondent AND PBS DISTRIBUTORS LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND GEORGE MAREVICH Fifth Respondent AND ROOF IMPROVEMENTS LIMITED (Removed) Sixth Responde

6. Griffiths & Anor v Plaster Systems Ltd & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...taking or pursuing an unnecessary step or an argument that lacks merit. Baragwanath J in Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corporation14 stated increased costs may be ordered where there is a failure by the paying party to act reasonably. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that an uplift is justifiable where particular conduct unreasonably increases costs above what might ordinarily have been expected,15 but it is only to that extent that any uplift from the scale is justified....

7. MG v HJ LCRO 256/2013 (19 December 2014) [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Issue [17] The issue on review is whether there is any good reason...

8. BORA Health (Drinking Water) Amendment Bill [pdf, 405 KB]

   ...Protection Officer, or as "an officer who has functions, duties, or powers under this Act" (clause 7, new section 69G – Interpretation) 2 In applying section 5, the Ministry of Justice has regard to the guidelines set out by the Court of Appeal in Ministry of Transport (MOT) v Noort [1993] 3 NZLR 260; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2000] 2 NZLR 9; Moonen v Film and Literature Board of Review [2002] 2 NZLR 754; and the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in R...

9. ND v SE LCRO 197/12 (24 June 2015) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...has broad powers to conduct her own investigations, including the power to exercise for that purpose all the powers of a Standards Committee or an investigator, and seek and receive evidence. The statutory power of review is much broader than an appeal, and gives the LCRO discretion as to the approach to be taken on any particular review and the extent of the investigations necessary to conduct that review. Review Hearing [13] Mr ND attended a review hearing in [City] on 22 June...

10. HR v OW & CT LCRO 79/2014 (8 September 2015) [pdf, 299 KB]

    ...question of compensation does not arise on the present facts because of the terms of settlement the parties 3 reached. Counsel refers to three of the functions that penalty orders fulfil in the disciplinary context drawn from the Court of Appeal decision in Wislang:1 (a) To punish the practitioner. (b) As a deterrent to other practitioners. (c) To reflect the public’s and the profession’s condemnation or opprobrium of the practitioner’s conduct. [12] Counsel also subm...