Search Results

1. LCRO 194/2015+56/2016 TB v HN Ltd (12 June 2017) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...TB apologise is reversed. Fine [34] The Committee ordered Mr TB to pay a fine of $7,500 to the NZLS. [35] The maximum fine pursuant to the Act is $15,000. [36] The AMINZ Tribunal ordered Mr TB to pay a fine of $7,000, where the maximum permitted fine is $10,000. [37] In both cases the fine goes to the body exercising jurisdiction. [38] A fine is a punishment. [39] The AMINZ decision notes that the fine as imposed was intended to cover the whole of the default set ou...

2. Dowling v Jacobsen Creative Surfaces Ltd [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...person that carries on the business of assembling, producing, or processing goods, and includes- (a) any person that holds itself out to the public as the manufacturer of the goods: (b) any person that attaches its brand or mark or causes or permits its brand or mark to be attached, to the goods: (c) where goods are manufactured outside New Zealand and the foreign manufacturer of the goods does not have an ordinary place of business in New Zealand, a person that imports or dis...

3. Werohia-Lloyd - Te Puna 154A No 2 (2006) 84 Tauranga MB 234 (84 T 234) [pdf, 579 KB]

   ...accommodate Katarina Werohia and the applicant's family. [4] This application came before the Court because the applicant began constructing the replacement dwelling prior to obtaining an occupation order. The District Council issued a building permit but then obtained a High Court injunction to prevent the building being completed until some formal order has been made by this Court allowing Mrs Werohia-Lloyd to occupy the dwelling. The Council seems to have obtained the injuncti...

4. [2006] NZEmpC WC 18/06 Progressive Meats Ltd v Meat and related Trades Workers Union [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...this Act (other than an action founded on tort): (s) determinations under such other powers and functions as are conferred on it by this or any other Act. [6] Section 13 of the Holidays Act 2003 is one of a number of similar sections that permit labour inspectors to determine certain questions in practice. It provides: 13 Labour Inspector may determine what would otherwise be working day (1) This section applies if an employer and employee cannot agree under section 12 o...

5. [2022] NZEnvC 216 Jones v Waikato District Council [pdf, 524 KB]

   ...this consent. 3 Council’s processing fees are to be paid in accordance with the Council’s schedule of fees and charges prior to the signing of the s224 certificate. 4 Prior to s223 and s224 approval all buildings shall comply with the permitted activity rules relating to building coverage, setbacks, daylight angles relative to the new boundaries and number of dwellings - with the following exceptions: (a) The dwelling located within Lot 1 shall not be located closer than 12m...

6. M v New Zealand Law Society [2017] NZLCDT 15 [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...on his own petition on 8 November 2012. He was discharged from bankruptcy on 8 November 2015. [5] He was approved to practise as an employed barrister on 10 January 2017. [6] The appellant applied in February 2016 for a practising certificate permitting him to practise as barrister and solicitor on his own account with a trust account. That application was declined on 8 September 2016 notified to him by letter of that date. The reasons for declining the application were set out i...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 77 Fleming v Attorney-General [pdf, 446 KB]

   ...s 187(3) makes clear, the Court’s jurisdiction is exclusive - except as provided in the Act, no other Court has jurisdiction in relation to any matter that is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. In other words, no other Court is permitted inside the fence; this Court is not permitted outside the fence. The present claim is brought under s 6 of the Act. Section 6 confers exclusive jurisdiction on the Court to make a declaration as to whether a person is an em...

8. Te Manutukutuku Issue 6 [pdf, 599 KB]

   ...Division it is easy to forget that 'claimants' are real people too. We sometimes need to be reminded of that. We have some limited work space available and researchers are welcome to any information that we hold in the Division. Where time permits, staff are also pleased to offer advice with research problems, or to direct researchers to particular information. Buddy Mikaere Director HEARINGS BEGIN IN TARANAKI The Urst of the mum raupatu claims to be heard Governor-G...

9. [2020] NZIACDT 18 - UO v Nukulasi [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...extended by her. [18] The Authority wrote to Ms Nukulasi on 15 May 2019 setting out the details of the complaint and inviting her explanation. [19] On 7 June 2019, Mr Laurent, counsel for Ms Nukulasi, replied to the Authority. She acknowledged permitting the s 61 request to languish for more than one year before filing it, a breach of cl 1 of the Code. However, it was open to the Authority to determine not to proceed, due to the family’s lack of cooperation. Ms Nukulasi also ad...

10. [2021] NZREADT 3 - Yang v The Real Estate Agents Authority & Chen (29 January 2021) [pdf, 232 KB]

    ...explain why the room had been so categorised and, indeed, what the 1 Austin, Nichols & Co Inc v Stichting Lodestar [2007] NZSC 103, at [13]- [16] 2 Edinburgh Realty Ltd v Scandrett [2016] NZHC 2898 difference is between a room which is permitted to be used only as a “study” and one that is a “bedroom”. The fact that the plan reflected such a distinction does not mean that there is a legally significant difference between the two or, if there is, what that differ...