Search Results

1. BZ v FI LCRO 245/2013 (5 April 2016) [pdf, 67 KB]

   ...submissions that Mr and Mrs BZ had expectation that the review process would allow them opportunity to call and cross-examine witnesses. 6 [25] The review process is not comparable to a court hearing. No cross examination of witnesses is permitted in a review hearing. [26] Whilst I was reluctant to allow opportunity for Mr BZ to file further information after the hearing had been concluded, it being his responsibility to have all his evidence put before the LCRO prior to t...

2. [2021] NZEnvC 078 Robins Road Queenstown 2013 Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...visual amenity, privacy, dominance, shading and access to sunlight, and construction effects as being effects of concern; (b) issues with the Council level decision being inconsistent as to its stated application of the ODP and the PDP; (c) permitted baseline and issues with the wider planning context; (d) questions as to the receiving environment; and (e) precedent effect. 9 [40] As to the criticisms that the appeal did not identify any new issues, the appellants con...

3. Horrell v Banyan Pacific Capital Ltd [2023] NZHRRT 35 [pdf, 361 KB]

   ...accepted that were the Tribunal to find that the source of Ms Horrell’s health information was the Cancer Society database, the rules would have been breached. In relation to the latter, Mr Brady accepted that if sharing of health information was not permitted between Medivex and Naturalwear, Naturalwear had collected that information contrary to the rules. [87] We deal with the second issue, the sharing of information by related companies, first. Further, in fairness to Mr Brady a...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 234 New Zealand Air Line Pilots’ Assoc IUOW Inc v Tasman Cargo Airlines Pty Ltd [pdf, 307 KB]

   ...consider whether s 10 applies and, if it does, to assess a suitable remedy. However, in the interests of completeness, the following comments are made. The union sought a compliance order and tentatively suggested that s 10 could be interpreted to permit the Court to deprive the non-union members of their pay rise, although it was reluctant to be seen to force that outcome. [70] I prefer the analysis in APEX about s 10: the section operates so that to the extent the prefe...

5. UC v OX LCRO 179-180 / 2011 (11 March 2013) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...It was conducted as a formal proof hearing. The present plaintiffs were entitled to participate in the hearing in respect of quantum and in relation to mitigation, despite the striking out of their statement of defence. In practice, they were permitted substantial latitude and were able to place before the Court a great deal of material. I return to this point below. [30] Written submissions followed the hearing. They were complete by 16 April 2008. 4 [3] UC applied for...

6. HM v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1553 (3 August 2021) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...that HM has paid DI on the invoice. I therefore award damages of $1,650.00 for HM’s towing costs. 20. HM claims $100.00 for two trips to hospital and $87.00 for Doctor’s fees. I dismiss HM’s claim for these costs because the Tribunal is not permitted under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to award damages for personal injury. Conclusion 21. For these reasons, I award total damages of $13,740.00 to HM. These damages are to be paid by B Ltd by the date set out in the order. I...

7. [2018] NZSSAA 19 (7 May 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...requested the assistance of the Regional Health Team, which conducted the review, because the appellant continued to ask for additional costs to be included in her Disability Allowance. [44] In our view, a request for further assistance does not permit the Chief Executive to conduct a review of entitlement under s 81. Such a request can only trigger an assessment of whether or not that request should be granted. There was no justification for using the appellant’s request for...

8. NT v Standards Committee LCRO 131/2014 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...any time up until the hearing, despite what I am satisfied were several prior challenges by the defendants. It is fair to say that part of the reason for this was the fact that this must have been one of the first claims under the 2009 Rules which permit claims to be filed without a full and proper articulation of their legal foundation. [11] He described the claims as lacking legal or substantive merit, or being lodged out of time.14 [12] He then said that: 15 [t]he whole c...

9. Richard Mayer v Complaints Assessment Committee 304 [2017] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...investigator, and his location overseas, he had not been able to contact Mr Bell and that the aspects of the complaint relating to the Family Court proceeding “may have to be raised by you with him directly”. Mr Mayer went on to say that “if permitted” he could provide comments from Mr Bell, “once I have made contact with Andrew if that is what you prefer”. Further, in his response to the investigator, Mr Mayer strongly challenged Mr File’s assertions concerning the af...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 36 Detection Services Ltd v Pickering [pdf, 139 KB]

    ...introduce a new subject and issue for the Court’s determination, which is materially different to those which the parties have elected to challenge pursuant to s 179. Secondly, that the plaintiff has no good and/or just excuse why it should be permitted to elect another part of the Authority’s determination which it previously elected not to challenge, particularly given that the applicant was aware of the time limits and was legally represented. Thirdly, it is submitted that...