Search Results

1. LCRO 138/2015 AZ, VY and CX v DW and EV [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...the respondents, alleging breach of directors’ duties and applying to set aside transactions which the liquidators considered were voidable. [9] The respondents asked the liquidators to pursue an action in negligence against the company’s former solicitor. A successful outcome would have provided funds to pay the company’s debts, but the liquidators were unwilling to pursue the claim. [10] The respondents initially personally defended the proceedings against them, but aft...

2. Holmes [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached information. The submission dated 31 December 2009 from Mr and Mrs Holmes to the chief executive. The assessor’s report dated 20 November 2009. The letter from John Bansgrove of the Department of Building and Housing to t...

3. De Marco v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs on Appeal) [2025] NZACC 27 (17 February 2025) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...the conduct of the proceeding; and (c) necessary for the conduct of the proceeding; and (d) reasonable in amount. Discussion [11] In her second application, notwithstanding Ms De Marco expresses her claim for costs as disbursements, the sum claimed appears to be in the nature of a claim for damages involving in part a claim for pain, stress and suffering in consequence of the way she feels she has been treated by the Corporation. [12] A claim for costs on appeal by a successfu...

4. Cunliffe & Cunliffe v Helensville Primary School Board of Trustees (Costs) [2024] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...REPRESENTATION Mr RD Cunliffe and Ms RV Cunliffe in person Mr M Hutcheson and Ms L Wilkinson for defendant DATE OF HEARING: 28 – 29 August 2023 DATE OF DECISION: 31 May 2024 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COSTS1 [1] Mr and Ms Cunliffe claimed that the Helensville Primary School Board of Trustees (the Board) interfered with their privacy by refusing information privacy requests that they 1 This decision is to be cited as Cunliffe & Cunliffe v Helensville Primary School...

5. BAB v PW LCRO 4 / 2011 (14 August 2012) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...that role. [34] However, there is a threshold below which a lawyer should not assist in interfering with the rights of others. That is the purpose of the Rule. A lawyer must be able to point to an assessment of the grounds on which he or she formed the view that a caveatable interest existed. The Standards Committee must consider this reasoning and form a view as to the merits of that decision. Otherwise the Rule would have no relevance or substance in these circumstances. [35]...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 154 TUV v WXY [pdf, 512 KB]

   ...must fail. The sequence of events [7] The plaintiff had been employed as a clerk by the defendant for many years. Issues arose which led to an employment dispute. The plaintiff believed that she was being subjected to an unjustified performance management process. She sought medical attention and received a string of medical certificates advising that she was assessed as unfit for work. A certificate issued on 17 April 2015 referred to the plaintiff suffering from: …...

7. [2025] NZEmpC  223 McGearty v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...pay. The evidence also indicated that pilots in general prefer to fly the larger wide-body jets rather than the narrow-body ones. [17] Air NZ wrote to Captain McGearty on 26 July 2016, approximately one year before he reached the age of 65, requesting that he stipulate his intentions pursuant to cl 3.2.3 – specifically, whether he wished to transfer to the A320 or take leave upon turning 65. [18] There was a period during which Captain McGearty did not formally respond to Air...

8. CI v MT [2023] NZDT 514 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...fees for the studio. Invoice #1038. MT questioned this invoice and declined to pay the Council fees on the basis that she had paid the Council directly. When J Design approached Council for a refund based on a duplicate payment the Council informed her that there was only one payment made. MT was asked for evidence of her payment to Council. On 20 September, five months after being invoiced, she corrected the claim that she had paid Council and paid the invoice in full on 27 Sept...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 140 French v Accident Compensation Corporation [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...opposed application for adjournment by the plaintiff. At the outset of the hearing, however, counsel for the plaintiff advised the Court that no adjournment was being sought. Ultimately, I granted an adjournment after counsel for the defendant requested that I do so, and following extensive argument. I then indicated that costs in relation to the hearing should be resolved immediately and invited counsel to be heard. However, counsel for the plaintiff requested the opportunity to...

10. [2023] NZEmpC 35 New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc v Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand [pdf, 249 KB]

    ...claim that its agreements have the same effect as the plaintiffs allege theirs have. To respond to the MERAS claim fairly, the defendant would need that claim to be properly pleaded, with disclosure provided and evidence presented. [11] Counsel requested that the MERAS application be considered in light of these submissions. Subsequent representations on these issues [12] Mr Mitchell KC, counsel for MERAS, then filed a memorandum stating that as it was not seeking any order from...