Search Results

1. Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2011] NZLCDT 5 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...route, we agree with the Society’s submission that a presumption of “openness” is implicit and in the absence of a body of case law specifically relating to s 240 and s 238, we adopt the principles expressed in R v Liddell4 by the Court of Appeal relating to s 140 of the Criminal Justice Act 1985, as principles that best support the purposes of the Act: “In considering whether the powers given by s 140 should be exercised, the starting point must always be the importance in a d...

2. 1982 Official Information Act charging guidelines [pdf, 28 KB]

   ...1982 provides that the Ombudsman may investigate and review any decision on the charge to be paid in respect of a request for access to official information. When informing applicants of charges to be paid, organisations should point out this right of appeal to the Ombudsman. 10.2 A record should be kept of all costs incurred. Wherever a liability to pay is incurred the applicant should be notified of the method of calculating the charge and this fact noted on the record. 11. OMBUDSMAN INVEST...

3. CAC 20005 v Morton-Jones [2014] NZREADT 100 [pdf, 29 KB]

   ...against the defendant in order to ameliorate the effect of the interim suspension of licence should the defendant succeed in the prosecution. 5 [21] Pursuant to s.113 of the Act, we record that any person affected by this decision may appeal against it to the High Court by virtue of s.116 of the Act. ______________________________ Judge P F Barber Chairperson ______________________________ Mr G Denley Member ______________________________ Mr J...

4. CAC402 v Zhang [2016] NZREADT 25 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...and the fine. 5 [14] We impose the following penalty upon Mr Zhang: (a) We censure Mr Zhang. (b) We fine him the sum of $2,000 to be paid to the Real Estate Agents Authority. [15] The Tribunal draws to the parties’ attention the appeal provisions of s 116 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008. ______________________________ Ms K Davenport QC Chairperson ______________________________ Mr J Gaukrodger Member ______________________________ Ms...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 42 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...of the statute by courts can be said to be at a developmental stage. The plaintiff says the particular issues arising in this case are unique, despite other litigation between associated parties in this Court, the High Court, and the Court of Appeal, so that it is important to the development of the law generally that the case is able to proceed. Further, the plaintiff says that in an area of law on one side of which there are “vulnerable employees”, it is important to allow s...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 106 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...interlocutory applications that were brought as of right and determined. If the plaintiff is correct, any litigation privilege in those documents has now expired by reason of the disposal of the associated litigation in the High Court and Court of Appeal by a judgment late last year of the Supreme Court. 4 That is a matter that the plaintiff is entitled to have determined. I will give directions at the end of this judgment about how that issue is to be determined....

7. Appleby Building Ltd v C Alva LCRO 117 / 2009 (12 October 2009) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...is privileged this may amount to such a good reason. [8] The fact that a solicitor may not claim privilege in respect of a demand of him or her to produce evidence in response to a professional complaint was determined by the English Court of Appeal in Parry-Jones v Law Society (1969) 1 Ch 1; [1966] 1 All ER 177. It is of note that the privilege in this case belongs to Mr Andrew’s client (Helmsdale). Lawyer-client privilege gives the client a right to refuse to produce those docu...

8. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   SUMMARY Case: Tweeddale v Pearson File No: TRI 2008-101-000067/ DBH 02946 Court: WHT Adjudicator: R Pitchforth Date of Decision: 1 December 2009 Background This is a decision dealing with claims made against: First and second respondents: Mr Pearson and Ms Tucker as previous owners Third respondent: Palmerston North City Council Fourth respondent: Mr Humphries as the alleged project manager and director of Humphries Construction Ltd, the construction company Fif

9. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 24 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2007-100-0000064 BETWEEN PAUL WHITE and WILNA WHITE Claimants AND RODNEY DISTRICT COUNCIL First Respondent AND LORELLE JOY KERKIN Second Respondent ______________________________________________________________ COST DETERMINATION Dated 23 April 2009 Background 1. On 4 March 2009 the Tribunal is

10. O'Connor v MacDee McLennan Construction Limited [2011] NZWHT Auckland 67 [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...affected. Due to the financial pressures they could not attend their niece’s wedding in Melbourne. [35] Generally an award of $25,000 per unit for occupiers is made based on the decisions of William Young P and Baragwanath J in the Court of Appeal in O’Hagan v Body Corporate 189855 [2010] NZCA 65, [2010] NZLR 445 [Byron Ave], Mok v Bolderson HC Auckland CIV 2010 404 7292, 20 April 2011 and Cao v Auckland City Council HC Auckland CIV-2010-404-7093, 18 May 2011. Accordingly,...