Search Results

1. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...develop, are that once a complaint to the Privacy Commissioner has been withdrawn and s 71(1)(d) applied by the Commissioner, the complaint is at an end. In addition, it would be contrary to the scheme and purpose of Part 8 of the Privacy Act to permit an individual, at his or her election, to bypass the Privacy Commissioner’s Part 8 complaints process and file proceedings directly with the Tribunal. [18] The facts in the present case are indistinguishable. The complaint under HIPC...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 163 Matajod v Crazy Horse Ltd [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...and the overarching consideration of the interests of justice, I am prepared to grant the company leave to file a statement of defence to Ms Matajod’s statement of claim. I consider that it is in the broader interests of justice for this to be permitted and that the prejudice to Ms Matajod in granting leave is minimal. However, I decline leave to file a challenge to the Authority’s determination. I consider that the factors weigh significantly against leave being granted, hav...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 148 Lewis v JPMprgan Chase Bank NA [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...November 2012 being expanded and improved significantly by a statement of claim prepared by his solicitors and filed on 18 February 2013, and two subsequent refinements of that by first and second amended statements of claim. [17] Parties are permitted to file and serve amended pleadings and, indeed, it is often beneficial that they do so to identify clearly the real issues between them. That is especially so where pleadings are filed originally by unrepresented litigants....

4. Thomas Baker Whanau Trust v Baker - Tarawera 5A (2013) 25 Takitimu MB 197 (25 TKT 197) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...2013 confirmation was received from the Trust that they wished to continue with the s 315 application and requesting a conference be held. [4] On 27 May 2013 I dismissed the s 315 application as the request was submitted well outside the period permitted in my 31 August 2012 decision. I also declined the request for a judicial conference. With regard to application for costs I confirmed that I would issue a decision on that matter. Submissions for Nigel Baker [5] Full indemn...

5. [2018] NZEnvC 085 Glencoe Land (Joint Venture) Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 6.5 MB]

   ...are within the scope defined by the original application. If they go beyond that scope by increasing the scate or intensity of the activity or proposed building or by significantly altering the character or effects of the proposat, they cannot be permitted as an amendment to the original application. A fresh application would be required. [Emphasis addedJ [11] In Haslam v Selwyn District Councif' ("Haslam") the Planning Tribunal considered whether a consent authorit...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...challenge into a challenge by hearing de novo;17 and the Court has the power to make directions to this effect.18 If Mr Chantama wishes to proceed with those claims, he is granted leave to amend his statement of claim accordingly and the Court will permit the challenge to proceed on a de novo basis. [21] Mr Chantama will have until 4 pm on 5 April 2024 to file and serve any amended statement of claim. Any statement of defence to an amended statement of claim in response is to be...

7. [2021] NZEmpC 46 Allison v Ceres New Zealand LLC [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...apparent when the briefs of evidence were filed and served in early February 2021; (d) as the senior employee in New Zealand Mr Gowda is the “eyes and ears” of the company for Mr McIntyre, who lives in the USA; 7 Such expeditions are not permitted by the Court for good reason, largely to do with the broader administration of justice; Alkazaz v Enterprise IT Ltd, above n 1, at [12]; citing Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [2017] NZEmpC 153 at [40]. (e) as the senior...

8. [2020] NZIACDT 31 TOD v Registrar of Immigration Advisers (20 July 2020) [pdf, 318 KB]

   ...overstaying for more than a year to the adviser’s oversight, when in fact it had arisen from decisions made by the appellant. The claimed prejudice to the appellant (becoming unlawful in New Zealand) may have been prevented had the adviser been permitted to urgently file a s 61 request. The claim for two years lost wages as compensation was fanciful, since the appellant could not prove causation between the adviser’s error and the loss of income over that period. 4 [17]...

9. Q v I LCRO 41 / 2009 (2 June 2009) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...A in seeking to recover an outstanding debt from Complainant Q. Mr Q complained that the conduct of Lawyer I was inappropriate in two respects. First he stated that Lawyer I had acted for Complainant Q some time previously and should not now be permitted to act against the company. Secondly, he stated that Lawyer I ought not have issued a statutory demand for payment of the sums claimed in light of the fact that the debt was disputed (or at least that he ought not have done so witho...

10. VUW v Accident Compensation Corporation & QRS (Jurisdiction Objection) [2014] NZHRRT 26 [pdf, 49 KB]

    ...[18] to [42] and no point is served by repeating what is said there. It is sufficient to note that the scheme of the Act is that in the first instance complaints must be dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner. Proceedings before the Tribunal are permitted by ss 82 and 83 only where an investigation has been conducted by the Commissioner under Part 8 or where conciliation (under s 74) has not resulted in settlement. Before either ss 82 and 83 are engaged the following statutorily prescr...