Search Results

1. LCRO 200/2020 SK and WP v AQ (27 October 2023) [pdf, 292 KB]

   ...that it is desirable in the public interest that this decision be published in a form that does not identify the parties or others involved in the matter and otherwise in accordance with the LCRO Publication Guidelines. [157] The parties are permitted to disclose the full text of this decision in evidence in any Court or Tribunal proceeding commenced for recovery of sums owing by the respondent. DATED this 27th day of OCTOBER 2023 _____________________ FR Goldsmith Legal...

2. CAC 304 v Chapman [2018] NZREADT 6 [pdf, 300 KB]

   ...earthquake on 22 February 2011. Disputed evidence (a) Placards Evidence [28] Following the earthquake, buildings were assessed for damage, and identified by green (able to be occupied), yellow (medium damage and risk, with only restricted use permitted), and red (unsafe to occupy) placards. There is a dispute as to what colour placards were placed on the building (in particular, the Southern Ink premises and an adjacent door (“the central doorway”)), and what informatio...

3. [2019] NZSAAA 1 (4 February 2019) [pdf, 417 KB]

   ...unreasonable “for the student to live with a parent and receive financial assistance from any parent”? Even if this could be seen as ambiguous it is clear that reg 8 is deliberately restricted to a very narrow range of “exceptional” situations. Permitting parents to avoid the Student Allowance income testing regime by arguing that it is unreasonable to expect them to support their adult child despite the fact that they may well be able to afford to do so, would arguably broaden t...

4. LCRO 68/2018 TY v HG (29 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...(a) in what he characterised as a highly technical legal context, it is “highly unlikely that Mr HG’s clients themselves formed this view in order to instruct Mr HG to make such allegations”; (b) “… confidentiality undertakings did not permit Mr HG to share the information that was the subject of the allegations with his clients”; so (c) he could not have been acting on the instructions of his clients when he alleged that our client had committed offences under the Fair...

5. Beef + Lamb NZ - EiC - J M Chrystal - Agricultural Science (5 Feb 2021) - Appendix 2 [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...uncertain results. Neither AgResearch Ltd nor any person involved in this Report shall be responsible for any error or omission in this Report or for any use of or reliance on this Report unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing. To the extent permitted by law, AgResearch Ltd excludes all liability in relation to this Report, whether under contract, tort (including negligence), equity, legislation or otherwise unless specifically agreed otherwise in writing....

6. [2021] NZACC 130 - Dunnage v ACC (6 August 2021) [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...month period before the two month extension period began to run. [87] There is no obligation on ACC or in this case AGL as an accredited employer to wait until it was deeper into the 2 month before determining it needed more time. Section 57(2) permits ACC or the accredited employer to take either step, that is make a decision within 2 months or extend the period as soon as practicable and no later than 2 months after the claim is lodged. Section 57(2) is not worded in a way to...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 95 Concrete Structures (NZ) Ltd v Rottier [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...incorrect. However, I do not regard the dichotomy between the parties on this issue as being particularly significant, since it is what happened next that is important. [20] It is common ground that Mr Henderson then told Mr Rottier that he was not permitted to invite people on site and that this would not be tolerated by the company. Mr Henderson said he made this statement because he believed Mr Rottier must have invited the KCS employees on site, as he was friendly wi...

8. Induction guide for legal aid providers - v1.4 June 2017 [pdf, 649 KB]

   ...evidence are large and complex and there’s a substantial volume of documentary evidence. The Crown must also be represented by at least 2 counsel. The junior counsel takes a secondary role under the supervision of the lead provider and isn’t permitted to undertake the substantive hearing even if the lead provider is unavailable. Junior counsel can be of a lower listing approval category than the lead provider and will be remunerated up to their own approval category (not the proce...

9. [2009] NZEmpC AC 15/09 Air New Zealand Ltd v V [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...addressing the inherent inequality of power in employment relationships; … [44] The plain meaning of the text of s103A is undoubtedly consistent with addressing the imbalance of power in employment relationships. This is because it permits all aspects of an employer’s conduct which adversely affect an employee to be subject to objective scrutiny and review if challenged. [45] Section 4 addresses the requirements of parties to an employment relationship to deal wit...

10. Mok v Boyd [2010] NZWHT Auckland 29 [pdf, 264 KB]

    ...deficient and/or to correct the plans; b) He constructed the house in a manner that suffered from defects and created the probability of water ingress; c) He failed to take reasonable care in the supervision of other contractors; d) He caused, permitted or allowed departures from the plans in relation to the cedar cladding and the soffit above the garage door and in the manner in which the plaster was applied; e) He failed to ensure appropriate sequencing of the work carri...