Search Results

1. UI v DW Ltd [2021] NZDT 1528 (8 September 2021) [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...for an abdominal scan. The specialist suggested by EH could not see Brownie until the following Tuesday. UI considered Brownie too ill to wait until then, so she phoned N and I in [City] who were able to see Brownie that day. An ultrasound scan performed by N and I on Friday 14 December confirmed fulminant pancreatitis with some oedematous areas with risk of abscessation. Brownie was, as described by Dr N of N and I, “very very sick”, and he went on to receive intensive care treatment...

2. RI v Hart LCRO 158 / 2011 (13 July 2012) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...In conjunction with the adjournment, consent was again sought from Mr Hart to the matter being dealt with on the papers as I considered all material necessary to complete the review was available on the files. [11] On 20 April 2012, a follow-up request was sent to Mr Hart. No reply was received and thereafter, the Case Manager had extreme difficulty in obtaining a response from him. On 8 May 2012, I therefore issued a Minute which included the following: [8] Given the difficulty...

3. Burns v Argon Construction Ltd [pdf, 42 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2007-101-12 BETWEEN JOHN WILLIAM BOSWELL BURNS, PETER GEOFFREY STUBBS and WILLIAM GRAHAM GEORGE CAMERON CLEARY as Trustees of the FUTURE HOLDINGS FAMILY TRUST Claimant AND ARGON CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Second Respondent AND BERNARD MOHAN Third Respondent AND PAUL BAYER (Removed) Fourth Respondent DECISION ON STRIKE OUT APPLICATIONS Dated 8 October 20

4. [2007] NZEmpC WC 32A/07 Port of Napier Ltd v Maritime Union of NZ Inc [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...responses, PONL launched these proceedings fearing that a picket would be mounted on Monday 10 December or thereabouts. [12] When counsel met with me by telephone conference call to deal with the litigation and an early hearing of the plaintiff’s claims, MUNZ undertook that no such action would be taken by it pending the decision of the Court. Claim against RMTU and individual employees and interim relief sought [13] The statement of claim against the defendants in this proceedi...

5. BORA Aquaculture Reform Bill [pdf, 458 KB]

   ...are able to receive the benefit of the allocation raises issues of intra- ground discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity. The issue of discrimination between iwi was also discussed in the context of the Māori Fisheries Bill. On that occasion, we formed the provisional view that individual iwi did not have their own ethnic identity. While we remain of this view, we consider that only coastal iwi have a recognisable customary interest in coastal marine farming. Inland iwi are not in a co...

6. LCRO 153/2022 YA v CK (16 July 2024) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...the LCRO is neither a judicial review nor an appeal. Those seeking a review of a Committee determination are entitled to a review based on the LCRO’s own opinion rather than on deference to the view of the Committee. A review by the LCRO is informal, inquisitorial and robust. It involves the LCRO 1 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 2 coming to his or her own view of the fairness of the substance and process of a Committee’s determination. [4] In rea...

7. Waitangi Tribunal - Ngāti Kahu Remedies Report [pdf, 5.3 MB]

   T H E N G Ā T I K A H U R E M E D I E S R E P O R T Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz t h e N g ā t i K a h u R e m e d i e s R e p o r t W A I T A N G I T R I B U N A L R E P O R T 2 0 1 3 W A I 4 5 Downloaded from www.waitangitribunal.gov

8. JM v DTM [2011] NZIACDT 1 (19 January 2011) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...also for the purposes of this decision. [14] I have considered the response in full. [15] Key aspects of the response to the minute presented by SN were that SN is said to have been a “Non-Advising Principal”. Further: [15.1] SNJ had not requested payment of $4,837.50, only $2,868.75. The calculation of $4,837.50 was for the purposes of illustration only. The fee was reasonable, including on a comparative basis. [15.2] The Complainant falsely stated that the work was pro bono,...

9. O'Hagan v Police (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 614 KB]

   ...these proceedings Mr O’Hagan alleged the Police did not respond to his IPP 6 request within the 20 working day timeframe allowed by the Privacy Act 1993 (PA), s 40. The Police have always admitted this breach and made apology when providing the requested information 18 days outside the 20 working day limit. In the decision delivered by the Tribunal as O’Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22 at [45] the Tribunal held that this apology was genuine. [2] Mr O’Hagan sought the maximum sum o...

10. BU v SI Ltd [2015] NZDT 1460 (10 September 2015) [pdf, 183 KB]

    ...in this claim were innocent victims, and I note that the Land Rover only had third party insurance, so SI Ltd has had to bear the loss of its own vehicle. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 10 September 2015 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available or a mistake was made. If you wish to apply...