Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 169 Kim v Thermosash Commercial Ltd [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...262, 267 (CA). limit evidence to what is not in dispute. Where a defect in pleading, challenged as disclosing no reasonably arguable cause of action, can be cured by amendment which the plaintiff is willing to make, the Court will almost always permit amendment rather than striking out. What is not in dispute [8] On 24 October 2007 Mr Kim provided Thermosash with a medical certificate which stated that he had suffered an injury during a basketball game and that he had run int...

2. Larkins v Kaitaia - Waihou Hutoia D2A Block [2013] Māori Appellate Court MB 159 (2013 APPEAL 159) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...trust could be contemplated.4 The second reason was that others of the whānau had vested shares in the trust. Their decision to do so, he opined, would have been influenced by Mr Larkin’s decision to vest his shares. Thus if the Appellant were permitted to withdraw his shares that action may “sour the aroha of their vesting”.5 Case for the Appellant [8] Mr Kahukiwa submitted that the decision of the Māori Land Court was incorrect on two principal grounds. First, he conte...

3. Brankin v CAC 10027 [2011] NZREADT 33 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...information, or matter would be admissible in a court of law. (2) The Disciplinary Tribunal may take evidence on oath and, for that purpose, any member of the Disciplinary Tribunal may administer an oath. (3) The Disciplinary Tribunal may permit a person appearing as a witness before it to give evidence by tendering a written statement and verifying that statement by oath. (4) Subject to subsections (1)to(3), the Evidence Act 2006 applies to the Disciplinary Tribunal in the...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 23 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...judgment are:  Whether the defendant filed and served her challenge to the plaintiff’s objection to disclosure of documents within the five clear days allowed for doing so; and  if not, whether the time for doing so should be extended to permit the Court to consider the defendant’s challenge to objection. [2] The relevant history of this matter is as follows. On 23 December 2014 the defendant gave the plaintiff notice, pursuant to reg 42 of the Employment Court...

5. Sec-274-N-Shoebridge-16.6.20-Redacted.pdf [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...modelling demonstrates that there are some areas of Mr Shoebridge’s property that would experience an increase in flood level, “. We know the land well here after residing for nearly twenty years and can assure the Court, if that situation was permitted to occur it would be in very close proximity to the dwelling. Form 33 continued Notice of person’s wish to be party to proceedings @36 of Mr Bell’s Report “ I am unable to comment as to whether or not Mr Shoebridge would...

6. [2018] NZEnvC 005 Vipassana Foundation Charitable Trust Board v O'Brien, Pichler, Auckland Shooting Club Inc [pdf, 362 KB]

   ...and has measured the earthworks at 297 Tuhirangi Road and on 18 January 2018 issued abatement notices in respect of those earthworks with which the Respondents will comply; e) The earthworks undertaken comply with the relevant plan rules for permitted activities; f) The First Respondents continue to comply with their undertakings to the Court in respect of 287 Tuhirangi Road; g) It is not lawful, necessary or appropriate for the Applicants to have access to the properties; and...

7. Nicholas v The Official Assignee - Lot 6 DP 34349 [2021] Maori Appellate Court MB 228 (2021 APPEAL 228) [pdf, 258 KB]

   ...its owners. This has resulted in serious harm and grief. The Maketū land should in fact be Māori freehold land. (b) It is unlawful and a breach of human rights and the Bill of Rights Act 1990 that the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009 permits the forfeiture of land when no criminal conviction is entered. Mr Nicholas has not been convicted of the charges on which the forfeiture orders are based. (c) The Maketū land is culturally significant to the whānau who reside there...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 1 Singh v Eric James & Associates Ltd [pdf, 46 KB]

   ...he rearranged these, he was expected to keep them. Mr Singh was expected to be available at least several evenings a week and at weekends. There were training and reporting requirements to which he was expected to adhere and Mr Singh was not permitted to engage in additional or alternative work in the same field, or certainly that would have been in competition with EJAL and its contracted insurers. [24] But there were also elements of the relationship in which there was not tha...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 8 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...accepted by all parties, however, it can be inferred that the defendants’ concern is that the documents may reveal that Haldemann LLC was carrying on business in New Zealand without registering as an overseas company for more than the ten days permitted by s 334(1) of the Companies Act. That seems at odds with the extract from the statement in reply that, to the extent that Haldemann LLC’s business was conducted in New Zealand prior to its registration as an overseas company, t...

10. Portsoy v Riding LCRO 55 / 2010 (4 August 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...undertaking and the terms of Agreement that had been signed by all of the parties. [8] Notwithstanding that the actual quantum of payments exceeded the amounts shown in the Payments Schedule, the Committee saw the work as falling within the range permitted by the Settlement Agreement, that they had been made in accordance with the undertaking given by the Practitioner and that the Practitioner‟s client who had been charged with ensuring the work was done had authorised release of...