Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 133 Ngawaka v Global Security Solutions Ltd [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...be unable to pay the defendant’s costs if the plaintiff’s claim fails.7 The power is discretionary and broad. In exercising the discretion regard must be had to the overall justice of the case, and the interests of both parties need to be carefully weighed up. The required balancing exercise was summarised by the Court of Appeal at AS McLachlan Ltd v MEL Network Ltd as follows:8 [15] The rule itself contemplates an order for security where the plaintiff will be unable to...

2. SJ & NY v XT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1644 (6 October 2021) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...the water charges are for leaks. Is XT Ltd responsible for those leaks? 1. Parties to a contract are bound by the terms and conditions of the contract. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) implies guarantees into consumer contracts for the protection of consumers. Section 28 provides a guarantee that services will be carried out with reasonable care and skill. 7. Under the contract between the parties the property owners are responsible for paying for water lost as a resul...

3. Factsheet-for-requesting-personal-information [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...under the Official Information Act 1982. Advice for making a request You may need to contact more than one agency to get all the records you need. You may need to show ID, like a passport or New Zealand driver’s license. This is to protect the privacy of the people who the records are about. Give the agency as much information you can – for example, the type of record you’re looking for, and the dates and locations, if you know them. Who should I send the request t...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 54/06 Yuan Cheng International Investment Group Ltd v Buer [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...addressed the decision of Pearce v Attorney-General in respect of the Department of Labour [2005] 1 ERNZ 731. That was a case where the full Court of the Employment Court considered the effect of an amendment to the Parental Leave and Employment Protection Act 1987 on the interpretation of the original section. The Court accepted there were three possibilities that can be gained from the authorities: • The original legislation was ambiguous and therefore the amending legislatio...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Fendall [2018] NZLCDT 26 [pdf, 349 KB]

   ...defined in s 241(c)?3 5. If not, did unsatisfactory conduct occur? Background [5] Ms Fendall is a practitioner of many years’ experience who has primarily specialised in representing young people in the Youth Court. [6] Having taken out income protection insurance in 2002, she made her first claim under the policy in September 2009. Her claim was accepted because she was suffering from depression. [7] This was the first claim period of two periods which are under consideratio...

6. LCRO 121/2023 AI v HR (12 December 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...require their lawyers to obtain valuations of, or to advise them about the values of, the relationship property. 1 Separation and Relationship Property Agreement (6 March 2018) (the agreement). 3 [13] The agreement contained a further lawyer protection clause which read as follows: The parties hereby acknowledge and agree that in executing this Agreement they have not relied on the other parties (sic) legal advisers and they hereby cross indemnify the other party’s legal advis...

7. 25072025-Electoral-Amendment-Bill [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...influencing a person’s choice whether to vote or not, for example. Treating and undue influence 50. The proposed amendments to the offences of treating and undue influence appear consistent with the NZBORA.52 Either the proposals are consistent with protected rights such as s 12, by positively upholding the integrity of the electoral system, or to the extent that they impose limits on protected rights, those limits are justified given (i) the important goal of preserving electoral int...

8. LCRO 38-2015 PF v MF [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...382/2013 (30 June 2017) at [77]–[79]. 13 [52] It goes without saying that this email would have caused unnecessary embarrassment, distress, or inconvenience to Mr T’s reputation, interests or occupation. [53] In short, Ms GG should have carefully advised her client against expressing her terms for settlement terms in that way. She should have explained the potential dangers of doing so, both for her client and for herself. And, most certainly, she ought not to have se...

9. LCRO 240/2013 TM v DC (8 May 2017) [pdf, 365 KB]

   ...deprived [him] of an entitlement to union membership”. Hearing in person [61] Mr TM indicated that he wished to be heard in person. A hearing took place on 31 March 2017. [62] I record that as well as hearing from Mr TM in person, I have carefully read the complaint and response, the Committee’s decision and the submissions filed in support of the application for review. There are no additional issues or questions which in my mind necessitate any further submissions from...

10. LCRO 1/2018 SY v LT and LN (17 December 2019) [pdf, 224 KB]

    ...that Mr SY had failed to communicate with the beneficiaries as described, the Committee turned to consider what professional standard or standards were engaged. [51] Referring to r 7.1 of Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules), the Committee noted that “a lawyer is required to keep a client informed about progress on the retainer”. It held that “the beneficiaries should also have been kept informed.”3 [52] The Committee conc...