Search Results

1. LCRO 89/2017 FZ v LS [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...compensation; (j) the threats were unnecessary for the protection or promotion of [Company A]’s interests and their omission would not have detracted from Mr LS’ argument; and (k) If allowed to stand, the decision set “a dangerous precedent which permits a lawyer expressly or impliedly to represent that a lay claimant has committed, or may commit, blackmail based solely on the lawyer’s 7 own perception of a lack of merit in the proposed claim and for the purpose of d...

2. Director of Proceedings v Candish [2013] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...2013 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL [1] These proceedings under s 50 of the Health and Disability Commissioner Act 1994 (HDC Act) were filed on 1 May 2013 and the statement of reply was received on 28 June 2013. This was outside the thirty days permitted by Regulation 15 of the Human Rights Review Tribunal Regulations 2002 but there being no opposition from the Director we grant leave pursuant to Regulation 15(3) for the statement of reply to be filed out of time. [2] The plai...

3. Friends of Lake Hayes Society Inc - Lay evidence presented by Richard Bowman and Mike Hanff - 22 February 2022 [pdf, 1.6 MB]

   ...that the new measures outlined below will help achieve this: • New Policy 7.D.10 which prioritises avoiding discharges or, where this is not achievable, best practice guidelines for minimising sediment loss are implemented. • New Rule 14.5.1.1 permits the use of land and associated discharge of sediment for earthworks or residential development subject to conditions, including that the area of exposed earth is no more than 2,500m2 in any 12-month period, there are setbacks from...

4. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 WML rebuttal Robert Pryor [pdf, 12 MB]

   ...assessment is deficient in that it does not address the following landscape matters which she considers to be relevant to an understanding of the landscape values of Matiatia Bay (i.e. the landscape): 
 (a) the past, present and likely future (permitted or consented) activities in the area; (b) the memorability of the area; and (c) the values to tangata whenua. Past, present and future activities 8. Ms Gilbert considers that while I mention the transport, rural and open...

5. Director of Proceedings (EFG) v Commissioner Police [2012] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...following remedies: (a) a declaration that the action of the defendant is an interference with the privacy of an individual: (b) an order restraining the defendant from continuing or repeating the interference, or from engaging in, or causing or permitting others to engage in, conduct of the same kind as that constituting the interference, or conduct of any similar kind specified in the order: (c) damages in accordance with section 88: 8 (d) an order that the defendant perform...

6. LCRO 195/2018 KW v LQ (26 June 2020) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...requirements but not to defend him/her. As a rule, they [advocates] tend to agree with the prosecution’s position and fulfil a formal function of the defence. If you are happy with this, please email me and I will take this case if time still permits. [7] In the meantime, a Legal Aid provider (KI) had been appointed to act for KW and had already applied for bail for her. [8] On 25 September LQ sent his terms of engagement to YT, advising that “as soon as we receive the signed...

7. [2017] NZEmpC 141 Lewis v Immigration Guru Ltd [pdf, 322 KB]

   ...unjustifiable dismissal under s 103(1)(a) did not mean that the Employment Court was precluded from considering the discrimination issue in the correct statutory context. A pleading point of that nature would be contrary to s 122 which expressly permits the Court to make a finding that a personal grievance is of a type other than that alleged. [12] The Court of Appeal in Nathan relied upon New Zealand Van Lines Ltd v Gray.3 That case was decided under the Employment Contracts Act...

8. LCRO 122/2015 NP v AO (21 May 2018) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...[8] Mrs NP says that, together with her husband and brother Mr BG, she had met with Mr AO on 1 October 2014. He refused to provide them with a copy of Ms T’s will on the basis “it had not been cleared by the Court, and therefore he was not permitted to do so”. He told them that there was no provision in the will for “any beneficiaries either in New Zealand or Australia”. They discussed Ms T’s house and contents, and checked with Mr AO that the place was still insured....

9. [2017] EmpC 158 Car Haulaways Ltd v First Union Inc [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...shortly before 6.00 am. Accordingly, there was a reasonable period of notice for those striking workers. [38] In reply, Mr Oldfield submitted that the notice referred to “a strike” and one that was “continuous”. The notice did not permit consideration of the circumstances of some employees only. [39] In Air Nelson v New Zealand Airline Pilots’ Assoc IUOW Inc, a full Court said this:9 8 Service and Food Workers Union...

10. Klee v CAC 10064 & Little [2012] NZREADT 40 [pdf, 54 KB]

    ...advertising photos, his instructions were not followed. Essentially, the complainant wanted the word ‘Auction’ to be placed prominently in red across the photo. The complainant feels that the reason given for this (that Bayleys’ policies did not permit it) was insufficient. 1.5 Suggestion that the property was worth $200,000 less than the appraised value: The complainant states that, on the basis of only one viewer comment, Spillers stated that the property was worth about $...