Search Results

1. CAC 20003 v Weldrand [2013] NZREADT 78 [pdf, 62 KB]

   ...Authority at Wellington; [b] $1,500 as a contribution towards our expenses payable to the Tribunals Unit, Ministry of Justice, 86 Customhouse Quay, Wellington. [57] 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 J Gaukrodger Member _________________________...

2. Justice Matters - issue 01 - December 2015 [pdf, 2.8 MB]

   ...for any type of legal aid query. Calls will be answered by legal aid staff in the Wellington office, 8am–5pm, Mon–Friday. 0800 2 LEGAL AID 0800 253 425 We work with the judiciary to deliver court services for the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, 58 district courts, the Environment Court, Employment Court, Coroners Court, Māori Land Court and Waitangi Tribunal We support 28 other tribunals, authorities and committees (including the Disputes Tribunal and Tenancy Tr...

3. CAC 20004 v Kolich & Anor [2014] NZREADT 66 [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...“Pelorus Realty” rather than “Pegasus Realty”. The Tribunal accepts this error and annexes a substituted Decision which correctly shows the name of Mr Kolich’s workplace. [9] The Tribunal draw the parties’ attention the right of appeal to the High Court contained in s.116 Real Estate Agents Act. DATED at AUCKLAND this 29th day of August 2014 _____________________________ Ms K Davenport QC Chairperson 4 ______________________________ Ms C Sa...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 26 Cross v Onerahi Hotel Ltd [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...without good cause or communication with his or her employer. In such circumstances, the employee has essentially unilaterally terminated the employment agreement and there is no dismissal. [33] In E N Ramsbottom Ltd v Chambers 5 the Court of Appeal made it clear that an employer should be cautious in drawing an inference that an employee has abandoned their employment and should take reasonable steps to make inquiries of the employee. 6 This is reinforced by the statutory...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 107 Zespri International Ltd v Yu interlocutory [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Challenged Documents and he is then to return the laptop to the plaintiff. (n) The IT Expert is to retain in his possession the Clone and any Working Copy of the information on the computer until such time as the proceedings and any challenge or appeal has been finally determined either by agreement or order [of] the ERA or a competent Court, following which the IT Expert is to delete all such information. (o) Leave is reserved for the IT Expert and/or the parties to seek furt...

6. Tawera v Tawera – Waitangi A1A2 (2014) 39 Tairawhiti MB 45 (39 TRW 45) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...attempt to partition her shares in the block. Mrs Tawera acquired those shares through a series of gifts from members of the Reedy whānau. 1 Her application for partition was successful in the Māori Land Court but that decision was reversed on appeal by the Māori Appellate Court in 1992 and her partition was reduced to a right to occupy. 2 This history was covered by the Māori Appellate Court in Tāmati Muturangi Reedy v Heneti Tawera - Waitangi A1A2 (1992) and is reproduced be...

7. Body Corporate 85927, 38 Roxborough St v Wellington City Council [2010] NZWHT Wellington 12 [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...(Sunset Terraces)3 where Heath J held that if the building could be built by a reasonable builder who would have access to the manufacturers‟ specifications no greater detail would be required to achieve a workmanlike result. This was upheld on appeal in Sunset Terraces4 where Baragwanath J said: [121] I agree with the Judge. No purpose would be served by requiring a designer to incur the cost of providing detail not reasonably necessary for the task. There being no carelessn...

8. MacKenzie v Christchurch City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 59 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...claims7. [26] In Hartley v Balemi8 Stevens J concluded that personal involvement does not necessarily mean the physical work needs to be undertaken by a director but may include administering the construction of the building. The Court of Appeal in Body Corporate 202254 v Taylor9 considered director liability and analysed the reasoning in Trevor Ivory Limited v Anderson.10 It held that the assumption of responsibility test promoted in Trevor Ivory was not an element of every...

9. BU v DG LCRO 276 / 2011 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...an inappropriate strategy on a number of levels. In the circumstances, I find it difficult to avoid the conclusion that DG contrived a situation whereby he could make a complaint against BU. While DG says he sought to resolve the impasse by an appeal to BU’s sense of collegiality, DG could, and should, have done things differently. [53] DG knew he was acting on the instructions of a disgruntled client. There was no reason for DG to expose himself to the risk he took in laying...

10. IV v DD & Ors LCRO 272/2012 (1 March 2016) [pdf, 81 KB]

    ...Penalty [62] The Standards Committee censured Mr IV, imposed a fine of $500, ordered him to pay costs of $500 and to reduce his fees to $9,500 plus GST. I will address each of these. Censure [63] A censure has been described by the Court of Appeal as:18 a formal or official statement rebuking a practitioner for his or her unsatisfactory conduct. A censure or reprimand, however expressed, is likely to be of particular significance in this context because it will be taken into accou...