Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 49 Katz v Mana Coach Services Ltd [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...the Defendant Judgment: 25 May 2011 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A D FORD The issue [1] The issue in this case is whether the plaintiff is entitled to be indemnified by her employer for legal expenses she incurred in successfully defending a careless driving charge arising out of an accident occurring in the course of her employment. The end result of the criminal proceeding was that the plaintiff was discharged without conviction. The facts [2] The facts can be briefly stat...

2. Cressida Claire Mayson Saywood v Complaints Assessment Committee 409, Benjamin Cartwright & Theresa O'Sullivan [2017] NZREADT 55 [pdf, 473 KB]

   ...Cartwright’s attempt to minimise the effect of the RealSure report (as noted above at [2]) allayed any concerns Ms Saywood may have had in respect of defects at the property. In this respect, the CAC found that Mr Cartwright did not exercise skill, care and competence and effectively misled Ms Saywood in breach of Rule 5.1 and Rule 6.4 of the Real Estate Agents Act (Professional Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2012 (the Rules). The CAC also noted that although Mr Cartwright advised...

3. LCRO 68/2019 NI v RC and OD (28 February 2020) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...agreement with her employer, the [City] District Health Board ([CDHB]), which would enable the working relationship to be terminated on agreed grounds, rather than being effected by her resigning. The proposed terms were intended to be for the protection and benefit of both employer and employee. 2 [3] Miss NI initially instructed another lawyer to act for her in this regard but in February 2018 instructed Mr RC to continue to try and negotiate an agreement acceptable to her....

4. X Ltd v II [2021] NZDT 1539 (14 May 2021) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...resulting in the amount claimed becoming $16,924.15. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 8 [5] I have to decide: (a) if the provisions of section 31 of the Consumer Guarantees Act apply; (b) whether the works were carried out with reasonable care and skill and were fit for purpose; (c) if goods supplied were of an acceptable quality; (d) if XL was provided with an opportunity to remedy any failure and, if so, whether the failure was remedied; (e) if any of the works included i...

5. X Ltd v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 261 (14 March 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...“company”, “Trust” and “agent” refer either to the entity itself or the individuals concerned, as the context requires. 7. The issues to be resolved were as follows: (a) Did the agent breach the agency contract? (b) If so, is the agent protected by the limitation of liability clause in the Contract? (c) If the agent is liable to the company, is the Trust liable to the agent under the indemnity clause in the Settlement? Did the agent breach the agency contract?...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 171 Timaru District Council [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...to come within the ambit of s86B(3) and have immediate legal effect upon notification. Section 86B(3)(a) applies to a rule that “protects or relates to water, air or soil (for soil conservation”. [87] The proposed suite of rules are about protecting the supply of community drinking water to the district, although they regulate activities involving land use and subdivision for the protection of water. [88] The protection of the quality of the community water supply from the e...

7. [2014] NZEmpc 85 McCartney v Atlas Concrete Ltd and First Union [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...shall be final. [11] Mr Cranney points next to what he says is a further protection for members in Mr McCartney’s situation, being an appeal to the next regional biennial conference of the Union under rr 38 and 39. Mr Cranney categorises these protections available to a dissatisfied member in Mr McCartney’s circumstances as “very strong”. Counsel submits that the rules expressly contemplate that the appropriate union official may decide that the Union will not act as reque...

8. Nairn v Peebles LCRO 109 / 2010 (14 December 2010) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...letter to the 7 Applicant for response, obtained requested information from the Applicant which he then passed on to the purchaser‟s solicitors. There is no mention about information about the acquisition of the title. [24] I have carefully considered all of the above information. It seems to me that since the Applicant asserts that the 23 June letter “highlighted the issue” of the defective title – a matter that he (but not the Practitioner) had actual knowle...

9. Larkins v Kaitaia - Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...he considers that he can utilise and manage the interests more effectively than the current trustees. Finally, Mr Kahukiwa emphasised that there was no reasonable disadvantage to the affected parties should termination be granted. [30] Having carefully considered the submissions and the evidence on the Court file, our conclusion is that there is insufficient evidence to make the order sought. This means that there must be a rehearing of the application. The Māori Land Court is ac...

10. BORA Maritime Security Bill [pdf, 59 KB]

    ...contain a reverse onus whereby the accused must prove something in order to escape liability (clauses 66 and 67). We are of the opinion that these provisions constitute "justified limitations" on the right to be presumed innocent that is protected by section 25(c) of the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching this view, we have taken into consideration the fact that the offences in question may be described as public welfare regulatory in nature and the importance of ensuring that the...