Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 72 Nathan v Broadspectrum (New Zealand) Ltd [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...urgent basis in a Minute dated 11 November 2016 and in my judgment of 5 December 2016. 3 [5] A stay was granted subject to conditions. [6] On 23 May 2017 the Court of Appeal dismissed Broadspectrum’s application but Mr Nathan has not been permitted to resume work. He now seeks a compliance order because he maintains that he has not been allowed by Broadspectrum to return to active duties in breach of the judgment in his favour. Preliminary matter [7] On 2 June 2017 Mr Nathan...

2. Parohinog v Yellow Pages Group Ltd (Strike-Out Application No 2) [2015] NZHRRT 14 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...litigants such as Ms Mackrell, and it was made by the Tribunal here. But lay litigants, like litigants who are professionally represented, are required to comply with the pleading rules and procedures of Tribunals and Courts. They are not to be permitted to file incomprehensive claims, because that only visits prejudice and injustice upon the respondent, not to mention enormous inconvenience to the Court or Tribunal. [27] A statement of claim drafted in compliance with these requireme...

3. P v H LCRO 02 / 2009 (20 March 2009) [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...(CA), Fletcher Moulton LJ was considering the power of the Court to strike out an action as vexatious and observed that: The Court has a right to stop an action at this stage if it is wantonly brought without the shadow of an excuse, so that to permit the action to go through its ordinary stages up to trial would be to allow the defendant to be vexed under the form of legal process when there could not at any stage be any doubt that the action was baseless. Importantly his honou...

4. White v Rodney District Council [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...and findings of fact that she (and her late husband) was found to be the head-contractor (there being no “turn-key” contract with Contemporary Design & Build Limited) and that it was the Kerkins who made the decision to depart from the permitted plans, and that therefore her cross-claim against the first respondent thereby failed. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s findings as to the quantum of remedial costs and the claimants’ failure to mitigate their loss was determined...

5. Mau Whenua Incorporated - Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust (2020) 419 Aotea MB 112 (419 AOT 112) [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...237 confers on this Court the powers and authorities of the High Court with respect to trusts. The limits on the High Court’s jurisdiction apply equally to this Court. The High Court is usually reluctant to exercise its inherent jurisdiction to permit deviations from the terms of a trust instrument. The Court has been prepared to do so in situations where all of the beneficiaries (who must all be sui generis) consent to the deviation.7 But that is not the case here. A trustee ma...

6. 2017 NZSSAA 046 (15 August 2017) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...position in the belief that he or she was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum to the chief executive; and (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor's financial circumstances, to permit recovery. (9B) In subsection (9A), error— (a) means— (i) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the department: (ii) any erroneous act or omission of an officer of the department that occurs during an invest...

7. Protection Order Applications flow chart December 2023 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...for a without notice application. Breach of Police Safety Order - a Police Safety Order (PSO) can be issued by Police to protect people at risk from violence, harassment or intimidation. If the person bound by the PSO does anything that is not permitted, Police can take them to the District Court and request a temporary Protection Order be issued. This occurs as long as there is no objection from the person being protected. This temporary Protection Order follows the process for a wi...

8. LCRO 143/2017 AC v BT (19 February 2019) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...and not with the client.13 (iii) Below the prohibited threshold — informed consent — r 6.1.1 [65] In circumstances where a lawyer determines that the prohibition in r 6.1 does not apply, then r 6.1.1 must be complied with before the lawyer is permitted to act for the clients concerned. The important pre-requisite to the permission in r 6.1.1 that a lawyer may act for more than one party in respect of the same transaction or matter is that “the prior informed consent of all pa...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 11 Christiansen v Sevans Group (NZ) Ltd & Others [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...last year. The applicant did not seek to pursue her application against him in these circumstances. [4] Mr Mercer is the sole director of the first respondent company. He is also the second respondent. He appeared at Court this morning and was permitted to give evidence, and advance submissions opposing the application. I was also assisted by the affidavit evidence filed by the applicant, and her submissions. [5] There is no dispute that the first respondent has taken no steps t...

10. 12 June 2020 Weston Lea Limited v Hamilton City Council & Director-General of Conservation v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 266 KB]

    ...people coming to court. Entry continues to be limited to one person at a time at the doorway, maintaining physical distancing. Members of public (including whānau or other support person) whose presence is not required at court will not be permitted to enter unless granted permission from the presiding judge. Such permission should be sought in the first instance by e-mail to the registrar in advance (if granted this must be supplied to the Court Security Officer at the...