Search Results

1. [2019] NZEmpC 153 Savage v Wai Shing Ltd [pdf, 545 KB]

   ...meeting with Mr Shing and another manager held every Thursday. At that meeting, comments of the agronomists would be compared with those of Mr Savage, and a recommendation for the following week’s work would then be made. He said he was no longer permitted to attend these meetings. Further, he was no longer receiving relevant text messages from his colleague, with Mr Shing making it clear he was not to contact staff. [50] He also said that he was directed not to go anywhere el...

2. Federated Farmers of New Zealand.pdf [pdf, 597 KB]

   ...collectively, to achieve the short term and long term water quality attribute states in Table 3.11-1; and b. Focusing priority action on those farming practices that reduce those contaminant(s) set out in Table 3.11-2; and c. Enabling, through permitted activity rules, low intensity farming and horticultural activities (not including commercial vegetable production), with low risk of diffuse discharge of contaminants to water bodies, and requiring resource consents for all other a...

3. Lewis & Anor as Trustees of the Warren and Bronwyn Lewis Family Trust v Auckland City Council [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...obvious to me when undertaking this inspection, that the timber (of the balustrade framing) was rotten. 24 [61] The dilemma relating to the plaster would have been resolved, had a second inspection been possible and/or if Ali had been permitted to take plaster samples away to have separately analysed in New Zealand at his expense. I cannot understand why the Claimants undertook repair work without notice to WHRS – thus preventing a second inspection. Neither can I under...

4. Watson v Parker - The Proprietors of Torere 64 Incorporated [2015] Māori Appellate Court MB 543 (2015 APPEAL 543) [pdf, 388 KB]

   ...or on behalf of deceased owners. [12] On 10 November 2014, Mr Clews filed a Notice of Intention to Appear on behalf of the respondents, advising that they supported the inquiry; that the practise of the Incorporation for many years had been to permit administrators or beneficiaries of the estates of deceased shareholders to cast votes; that having taken legal advice the committee members acknowledged that the practise was wrong; that as a result, votes were improperly cast at the AG...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 166 Scaife v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 3 MB]

   ...Vegetation and Biodiversity 34 Wilding Exotic Trees 35 Temporary Activities and Relocated Buildings 36 Noise 37 Designations 39 Wāhi Tūpuna District Plan web mapping application 46.3.2 Interpreting and Applying the Rules 46.3.2.1 A permitted activity must comply with all the rules (in this case Chapter 46 and any relevant district wide rules). 46.3.2.2 Where an activity does not comply with a standard listed in the standards tables, the activity status identified by t...

6. Clarken v Carling [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...authorities cited (supra), I find that the Second respondents, Douglas and Robin Foley, owed the Claimants a duty of care as the purchasers of the property they built and developed, Douglas and Robin Foley breached that duty of care by constructing, or permitting to be constructed, defective building works, and by reason of the said breaches, the Claimants have suffered loss and damage to their property for which the Second respondents are liable. [90] Accordingly, I find the S...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 187 Calcutta Farms Limited v Matamata-Piako District Council [pdf, 2.6 MB]

   ...plan change or variation of it, if it addresses the extent to which the plan change or variation changes the pre-existing status quo; and (b) if the effect of regarding a submission as being "on" a plan change or variation would be to permit a planning instrument to be amended without real opportunity for participation by those potentially affected, that is a powerful consideration against finding the submission to be "on" the change. 26 [58] The following obse...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 199 Lawton v Steel Pencil Holdings Ltd [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...Lawton and Mr Stock, they, SPHL and the two family trusts, entered into an agreement entitled “Agreement for Sale and Purchase of Shares” (the Agreement). The Agreement included a clause that provided that its terms were, to the maximum extent permitted by law, in full and final settlement of the issues between the parties as to shareholding and associated liability. Under the terms of the agreement, Mr Lawton resigned his employment, effective 31 May 2020 and SPHL agreed to pay...

9. LCRO 181/2019 SL v GB (29 January 2021) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...lawyer must, under r 4.2 of the Rules, “complete the regulated services required by the client under the retainer” unless any one or more of three exceptions specified in that rule apply.30 Exceptions [118] The third exception, in r 4.2(c), permits a lawyer to terminate the retainer for “good cause and after giving reasonable notice to the client specifying the grounds for termination”.31 [119] The grounds that constitute “good cause”, listed “non-exhaustively” i...

10. LCRO 109/2015 RKX v SDC [pdf, 386 KB]

    ...paper. (c) He receipted payment of his fees into his firm’s trust account. (d) Mr SDC’s perception of the services Mr RKX was providing. Authority to pay trustee fees [18] In the Committee’s view: (a) Mr RKX was “not authorised nor permitted to use those funds for his fees”.16 (b) The “taking of those fees without authorisation and not refunding them when challenged was not acting competently consistent with the terms of the retainer and the duty to take reaso...