Search Results

1. [2021] NZEnvC 020 Otago Regional Council [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...notice, which was accompanied by memoranda of counsel stating that Willowridge: (a) makes its application under s 274(1)(d); (b) is not a trade competitor for the purpose of s 308A; (c) seeks to join in relation to two proposed rules addressing permitted and restricted discretionary earthworks (rules 14.5.1 and 14.5.2), and that it supports their deletion; and (d) it has an interest greater than the public generally. [2] The notice was filed some three weeks out of time and was...

2. [2011] NZEmpC 99 Broughton v Microsoft NZ Ltd [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...to unreasonable and undue time and expense, and delay these proceedings. [9] The defendant’s objection was taken later than the five days allowed for in the Regulations to do so and the defendant seeks leave to object out of time. That is permitted under s 221 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 and I formally grant leave. [10] On the affidavit evidence, the defendant has already gone a substantial way to satisfying this request for disclosure although I accept that it is too...

3. Example Indicative Site Visit Health and Safety Plan-Transportation Provider [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...participant who has been left behind. ➢ Participant who has been left behind to attempt to contact, via mobile phone, the PCBU/guide. ➢ PCBU/guide to return to site, as soon as reasonably practicable and if weather and visibility conditions permit, to collect the participant. ➢ PCBU/guide to call 111 for assistance if required. ➢ Complete incident report. Page 12 of 12 EMERGENCY RESPONSE (with chain of command) For a major event: • Pilot/skipper...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...lawyers on 7 August 2014. [4] Counsel for the plaintiff submits that the statement of defence should have been filed and served by 6 August 2014; counsel for the defendant submits that it was filed and served on the final day for which filing is permitted under the Regulations. [5] Regulation 19(2)(a) of the Regulations provides that a defendant must file a statement of defence within 30 clear days after the date of service of the statement of claim. Regulation 19(4) of the Regul...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 121 Solid Roofing Ltd v Newman [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...parties have been given the opportunity to make further comment on the good faith report before the Court decides, pursuant to the provisions of s 182 of the Act, whether or not to limit the nature of the challenge or the extent of the evidence to be permitted. Both parties have filed submissions with the Court commenting on the good faith report. 2 Newman v Solid Roofing Ltd [2018] NZERA Auckland 254. The good fait...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 72 Waikato District Health Board v Dent [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...between the parties. In other words, the Court will get a better appreciation of the issues affected by Ms Dent’s challenge if it can examine the employment relationship holistically, as it will be able to do if leave is granted to the Board permitting it to challenge and therefore to have heard and reconsidered other relevant and inextricably linked events. [18] I agree with the Board that Ms Dent’s situation will not be prejudiced by granting leave. The delay in maki...

7. [2015] NZSSAA 033, 12 May [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...On this occasion we are not satisfied that these were exceptional circumstances which would have warranted the Chief Executive granting an advance of benefit of $3,999 when the appellant’s advance 6 balance was already in excess of the permitted limit. We consider the Chief Executive’s decision to decline an advance of benefit of $3,999 was correct. [31] We do, however, have considerable sympathy for the appellant’s circumstances. It is highly desirable that he has a r...

8. Baigent v ACC [2011] NZACA 3 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...fact and not law. In order for leave to be granted the appellant must show this is a question of fact and law. Is a mixed question of fact and law; in particular, it must be shown that there was no real evidence before the Appeal Authority to permit it to arrive at its determination. The appellant cannot discharge this burden. [27] Secondly, as the Appeal Authority held, the late review (brought 33 years out of time), together with the absence of contemporaneous evidence from...

9. HC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 391 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...vendor’s warranty that it caused works to be done without obtaining a building consent when one was required? 4. HC claimed X Ltd breached clause 9.2(5) of the agreement where the vendor warranted that for any works it had done, it had obtained ‘any permit, resource consent, or building consent required by law”. 5. NN, director of X Ltd, considered a building consent was not required because the existing bathrooms were only renovated prior to the sale and there was no movement...

10. ACG Ltd v ZXX Ltd [2011] NZDT 157 (9 May 2011) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...effect of excluding the operation of the Fair Trading Act. The requirements of the Act are mandatory. In enacting the legislation, Parliament sought to protect the consumer from unfair trading and it would be inconsistent with that objective to permit a person engaged in trade to exempt him or herself from liability under the Act. In effect, this would be to allow such persons to opt out of the operation of the Act and the regime decreeing fair trading in the public interest (see H...