Search Results

1. KOTUHI Shane Hasan Francis Sharif (CSU 2011 WGN 000217) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...April 2011, on the condition that CYF would remain involved with Shane, to support him and to apply for the independent youth benefit. [11] The Ministry was at this time informed by Mr Kotuhi’s lawyer for the child, that he wished for the s 101 custody order to be totally discharged. [12] Mr Kotuhi’s social worker did not oppose the discharge of the custody order because since early 2011 Mr Kotuhi had refused to live in the approved placement. At discharge the Court ordered...

2. KH v ED [2018] NZDT 1434 (20 September 2018) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...will be responsible for these trees causing a nuisance and damage” under the Property Law Act. In my order of 3 July 2018, I said: ED is incorrect for the following reasons: a. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim in tort (section 10(1)(c) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) in respect of: “(i) the destruction or loss of any property: (ii) any damage or injury to any property: (iii) the recovery of any property.” The “property” is KH’s trees. b. Un...

3. Whiles-Clarry v Standing [2011] NZIACDT 25 (8 August 2011) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...for applying for residency $700. [9.4] General damages for stress, and additional expenses $16,000. [10] The Adviser made a submission on the disciplinary sanctions, including the Complainants’ claim for compensation. His submission was that: [10.1] The Tribunal’s decision upholding the complaint was wrong as, contrary to the Tribunal’s finding, there was no evidence the Adviser gave any incorrect advice. [10.2] He had successfully applied for an appropriate visa and that was wh...

4. NZCVS Cycle 3 topical module report - Patterns of victimisation by family members and help-seeking by victims - data tables [xlsx, 708 KB]

   ...Separated 8 43.24 # 10.66 4.48 .‡ * Divorced S 94.82 SŜ 4.28 Widowed/surviving partner S 124.45 SŜ 1.59 Never married and never in a civil union 8 37.44 # 2.09 0.8 .‡ * Household composition One-person household 3 45.56 # 1.16 0.53 .‡ Couple only S 101.76 SŜ 0.1 * Couple with child(ren) S 67.55 SŜ 0.24 One parent with child(ren) 10 39.59 # 7.74 3.05 .‡ * Other household with couple and/or child S 77.05 SŜ 0.85 Other multi-person household S 80.85...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...the substantial merits of each case, without regard to technicalities.11 It may call for and take into account such evidence and information, from the parties or from any other person, as in equity and good 7 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 101(ab) and 143(b). 8 Section 3(a)(v). 9 Section 3(a)(vi). 10 Section 143(f). 11 Section 157(1); and Employment Relations Authority Regulations 2000, r 4(1). conscience it thinks fit, whether strictly legal evidence or not.12...

6. OIA-106597.pdf [pdf, 899 KB]

   ...Forensic 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 142 123 127 213 123 109 140 174 154 150 197 232 208 229 188 208 Māori PM External Only 0 0 1 1 3 3 2 4 8 5 0 0 0 1 0 2 PM Immediate Full - Coronial 176 197 215 182 146 107 116 124 103 113 101 91 88 92 75 90 PM Immediate Full - Forensic 8 21 33 15 19 6 7 11 8 11 5 1 4 4 4 3 PM Immediate Lesser - Coronial 11 31 19 24 42 20 11 12 20 19 28 26 31 32 36 47 PM Immediate Lesser - Forensic 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 15 Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...broader. I turn to set out my understanding of the relief that is sought on the current application and the reasons why Mr AlKazaz submits that recall/a rehearing is appropriate. 17 AlKazaz, above n 1. 18 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd [2021] NZSC 101. 19 AlKazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd (No 10) [2021] NZEmpC 94. [19] Interlocutory judgment no 9 dismissed Mr AlKazaz’s application for a stay of the costs challenge and found that the company was entitled to costs on the appli...

8. NZBORA-Advice-Fair-Digital-News-Bargaining-Bill-for-publication.pdf [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...view that an NME provides material support to a designated terrorist entity, and that any decision not to register an applicant on that basis could be challenged by way of judicial review proceedings. 13 See, for example, Hamed v R [2011] NZSC 101, [2012] 2 NZLR 305 at [161] per Blanchard J. 14 Ibid at [162] per Blanchard J. 15 Clause 77. presumed innocent requires that an individual must be proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt and that the state must bear the burden of pr...

9. Von Tunzelman v Southland Regional Development Agency Ltd and Tracey Wayte Ltd (Strike-Out-Applications) [2022] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...under appeal to the Court of Appeal, it remains a useful current summary of the principles applicable to the strike-out jurisdiction of this Tribunal. [10] The key principles from Lavender, Kropelnicki and Williams can be summarised as follows: [10.1] The pleaded facts are assumed to be true; [10.2] A cause of action must be clearly untenable to be struck out; [10.3] The jurisdiction to strike out is to be used sparingly and if there is a way in which a defect in a claim or proce...

10. Murphy v ACC (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 71 [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...observations from this clinical interaction. It is a real pity that this opportunity was missed, as this was likely early in the course of his bacterial meningitis and treatment here would have prevented the infection progressing further.” [101] It appears the meningitis was likely “early in the course” in Dr Bourke’s opinion. He is clear about the effects of delay. He said: “Even a 30 minute delay is considered dangerous, with guidelines recommending IV antibiotic treat...