Search Results

1. Smith v Wellington City Council [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...it or arranged for its installation. I find that he should be held liable for the defects in its installation. 7.10 Leak No 8B – at base of east wall. Mr Potter arranged for the drive and paths around the building, and he should not have permitted the levels of these paved areas to be raised above the bottom of the cladding. His negligence has caused the damage to the bottom of the walls in these locations. However, the greatest amount of damage has been caused by the backf...

2. Taueki v McMillan - Horowhenua 11 (Lake) (2014) 324 Aotea MB 144 (324 AOT 144) [pdf, 311 KB]

   ...child she went to the lake with whānau to gather kai and she was always made aware that the lake was a wāhi tapu. One of the traditions carried out in relation to the lake was to inter the bones of their dead. Fishing and other activities were permitted but as long as it fit with the tikanga. She identified that there are wāhi tapu all around the lake, also extending to the de-watered area. One of the concerns prompting her to make the application was the construction of walkwa...

3. Communication Assistance Quality Framework FINAL [pdf, 3.6 MB]

   ...and neutrality are central to the CA role; as such, communication assistance providers are paid by the Ministry for the services they provide to the court through a contractual arrangement. No other payment method for communication assistance is permitted – this includes payment for communication assistance via legal aid, private payment or through a lawyer’s disbursements. Only communication assistance providers who hold a contract with the Ministry for communication assistance se...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 230 FIRST Union Inc v Jacks Hardware and Timber Ltd [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...agreement” under s 33(2)(b). To rule out, philosophically, any collective bargaining about such an important element of a collective agreement, as Jacks did, casts significant doubt that what it said were these “genuine reason[s]” fell within the permitted category of exceptions under subs (1). They are objections “in principle” and, I conclude, are not “genuine reasons” as the meaning of that term was intended by Parliament using the examples contained in subs...

5. ENV-2016-AKL-000193 Kiwi Property Group Limited & Others v Auckland Council Consent Order [pdf, 19 MB]

   ...under 13364.1. (a) Bonus accommodation floor area: Where floor area is developed for residential units, visitor accommodation, hotels, and boarding houses/hostels, the maximum basic GF,A, limitation may be exceeded by: (i) up to 50,OOOm~ as a permitted activity (ii) over 50,OOOm~as a restricted discretionary activity {bt fill Office activity exceeding 48,OOOm2 1 00,000m2 up to a maximum of 70,OOOm~ 130,000m2 GFA is a restricted discretionary activity. fc) (b) Activities other th...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 90 Walker v Procare Health Ltd [pdf, 313 KB]

   ...[51] The Grant Thornton report was produced in evidence and Mr Sclater was called as a witness by Ms Walker. Mr Sclater had not provided a written brief of his evidence and Ms Walker had to be reminded by the Court more than once that she was not permitted to cross-examine her own witness. Through her questioning, Ms Walker endeavoured to establish that Mr Sclater’s report was “highly biased and unbalanced” in that he did not include comments made by Finance section personnel....

7. LCRO 106/2018, 107/2018, 170/2018 and 181/2018 SY, [SAL] and DT v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (22 August 2019) [pdf, 462 KB]

   ...his position clear to Mr DT as early as on 6 May 2015, in his email to Mr DT. [291] At that early stage, Mr UB’s mistaken views called out for emphatic, unequivocal and robust legal advice from Mr DT. Mr UB’s approach should not have been permitted to go unanswered. [292] Instead, it appears that Mr DT merely raised the issue of whether the farm could be leased rather than sold. It is correct that he did so in the context of advising that the auction should not proceed; but...

8. LCRO 236/2020 TB - Application for review of a prosecutorial decision (13 December 2021) [pdf, 580 KB]

   ...the Review Officer can confirm the Committee’s decision or determination. Secondly, the Review Officer may modify the decision or determination. Thirdly, the Review Officer may reverse the decision or determination.46 [244] The fourth option permits a Review Officer to refer a matter back to a Standards Committee, with specific directions as to reconsideration.47 [245] A Review Officer has no power to make any orders in connection with charges that have been framed and laid by a St...

9. Evaluation of Family Dispute Resolution service and mandatory self-representation [pdf, 2 MB]

   ...FDR mediation. The FDR organisation representative indicated that FDR mediators are encouraged to be mindful of the privilege section in the Act when they respond to a complaint, as it is an offence to disclose a statement from the mediation unless permitted to do so by the parent who made the statement. 6.8 Other 6.8.1 Support for name change for preparatory counselling Part way through the fieldwork for this evaluation the term ‘preparatory counselling’ was changed to ‘prepara...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 151 Zhang v Telco Asset Management Ltd [pdf, 537 KB]

    ...reinforced by the fact that significant remedies have been awarded, and it would not be in the interests of justice, in this particular case, to impose a penalty on top of those remedies.63 [163] Although the evidence before the Court has permitted a fuller analysis of this particular claim than appears to have been available in the Authority, I am not satisfied that it erred by declining to award a penalty. This aspect of the challenge is dismissed. Failure to undertake...