Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...lawyers on 7 August 2014. [4] Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the statement of defence should have been filed and served by 6 August 2014; counsel for the defendant submits that it was filed and served on the final day for which filing is permitted under the Regulations. [5] Regulation 19(2)(a) of the Regulations provides that a defendant must file a statement of defence within 30 clear days after the date of service of the statement of claim. Regulation 19(4) of the Regul...

2. [2018] NZEmpC 121 Solid Roofing Ltd v Newman [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...parties have been given the opportunity to make further comment on the good faith report before the Court decides, pursuant to the provisions of s 182 of the Act, whether or not to limit the nature of the challenge or the extent of the evidence to be permitted. Both parties have filed submissions with the Court commenting on the good faith report. 2 Newman v Solid Roofing Ltd [2018] NZERA Auckland 254. The good fait...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 72 Waikato District Health Board v Dent [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...between the parties. In other words, the Court will get a better appreciation of the issues affected by Ms Dent’s challenge if it can examine the employment relationship holistically, as it will be able to do if leave is granted to the Board permitting it to challenge and therefore to have heard and reconsidered other relevant and inextricably linked events. [18] I agree with the Board that Ms Dent’s situation will not be prejudiced by granting leave. The delay in maki...

4. [2015] NZSSAA 033, 12 May [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...On this occasion we are not satisfied that these were exceptional circumstances which would have warranted the Chief Executive granting an advance of benefit of $3,999 when the appellant’s advance 6 balance was already in excess of the permitted limit. We consider the Chief Executive’s decision to decline an advance of benefit of $3,999 was correct. [31] We do, however, have considerable sympathy for the appellant’s circumstances. It is highly desirable that he has a r...

5. Baigent v ACC [2011] NZACA 3 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...fact and not law. In order for leave to be granted the appellant must show this is a question of fact and law. Is a mixed question of fact and law; in particular, it must be shown that there was no real evidence before the Appeal Authority to permit it to arrive at its determination. The appellant cannot discharge this burden. [27] Secondly, as the Appeal Authority held, the late review (brought 33 years out of time), together with the absence of contemporaneous evidence from...

6. HC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 391 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...vendor’s warranty that it caused works to be done without obtaining a building consent when one was required? 4. HC claimed X Ltd breached clause 9.2(5) of the agreement where the vendor warranted that for any works it had done, it had obtained ‘any permit, resource consent, or building consent required by law”. 5. NN, director of X Ltd, considered a building consent was not required because the existing bathrooms were only renovated prior to the sale and there was no movement...

7. ACG Ltd v ZXX Ltd [2011] NZDT 157 (9 May 2011) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...effect of excluding the operation of the Fair Trading Act. The requirements of the Act are mandatory. In enacting the legislation, Parliament sought to protect the consumer from unfair trading and it would be inconsistent with that objective to permit a person engaged in trade to exempt him or herself from liability under the Act. In effect, this would be to allow such persons to opt out of the operation of the Act and the regime decreeing fair trading in the public interest (see H...

8. Otago Regional Council [2021] NZEnvC 20 (s 281 Application - Willowridge Developments) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...notice, which was accompanied by memoranda of counsel stating that Willowridge: (a) makes its application under s 274(1)(d); (b) is not a trade competitor for the purpose of s 308A; (c) seeks to join in relation to two proposed rules addressing permitted and restricted discretionary earthworks (rules 14.5.1 and 14.5.2), and that it supports their deletion; and (d) it has an interest greater than the public generally. [2] The notice was filed some three weeks out of time and was...

9. Phillips v King - Phillips Whanau Trust (2020) 421 Aotea MB 216 (421 AOT 216). [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...that she has resided in the homestead and has benefited from that asset. However, she has done so with the knowledge, if not agreement, of all of the trustees and beneficiaries of the Trust. She accepts that proper processes were not followed to permit her to reside in the homestead, and any conflict of interest given her role as a trustee was not managed appropriately. But that is because the trustees never held a meeting, so she cannot be entirely to blame for the lack of due p...

10. Powell - Tunapahore 6 (2015) 130 Waiariki MB 160 (130 WAR 160) [pdf, 179 KB]

    ...on the trust. [5] Third, she complains that the Deputy Registrar was inconsistent in his conducting of the meeting by, on the one hand, agreeing that the election should be held by way of show of hands and then subsequently changing his mind and permitting a secret ballot. [6] Ms Powell also raised concerns over funds held in trust by solicitors and asked that a determination be made as to ownership of those monies. [7] The issue for determination is whether or not the nominee...