Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 1 Lyttelton Port Co v The Rail and Maritime Transport Union Inc (No.2) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...night, which was attended by counsel for all parties. By then, documents had been filed which outlined the position for MUNZ and the Lyttelton Port Co Ltd (LPC). Counsel for MUNZ, Ms Ryder, proposed that the Court’s order should be amended to permit limited picketing during the two periods for which notices of strike have been given, 31 December 2016/1 January 2017, and 7/8 January 2017. Counsel for LPC, Mr Towner, strongly opposed the application, principally on the ground tha...

2. ENVC Hearing 6Oct14 s274 evidence chief Anthony King-Turner [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...the area outside the ferry terminal and the cul de sac simply does not support this statement. 36. In paragraph 74, Mr Apeldoorn states “My evaluative assessment leads me to conclude that the current levels of service at the wharf, within the permit parking area and in relation to the public transport operations are maintained and assured….Based on the survey findings there are no adverse transport affects as a result.” I suggest that Mr Apeldoorn could have spoken with the...

3. Green v New Zealand Police (Jurisdiction) [2019] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...particulars of the complaint and afforded a fair opportunity to respond: [73]. [36] Sections 82 and 83 set out the circumstances in which proceedings under the PA can be brought in the Tribunal. Their effect is that proceedings before the Tribunal are permitted only where an investigation by the Commissioner has been conducted under Part 8 or where conciliation (under s 74) has not resulted in settlement: Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporatio...

4. [2008] NZEmpC WC 10/08 Monteith v Eagle [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...An explanation was offered for only part of that delay and that explanation was unconvincing. There is nothing to suggest that Mrs Monteith would have a reasonable prospect of success in challenging the Authority’s determination were she permitted to do so. [35] While I have discussed other factors and found some of them to be relevant, I place relatively little weight on them. [36] Overall, I find that it is not in the interests of justice to extend the time for filing a ch...

5. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Hong [2019] NZLCDT 28 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...Inspectorate. [3] His failure or refusal to cooperate with the inspector was contrary to his obligations under reg 29 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Trust Account) Regulations 2008 (the Regulations). That regulation requires Mr Hong to: (a) permit an inspector to perform the review of the trust accounts of his practice; and (b) produce to the inspector any trust account records of the practice that the inspector requires and to assist the inspector to take copies of those...

6. [2019] NZEnvC 037 Queenstown Airport Corporation Ltd [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...it submits no costs are justifiable in circumstances where a public body is seeking to acquire private land. That is because a landowner should be fully able to exercise any power to resist compulsory acquisition or to ensure acquisition is only permitted on a reasonable basis. [10] While s 285 of the Resource Management Act 1991 empowers the court to award full indemnity of reasonable costs incurred, the court has only exercised this power in exceptional circumstances. All of the c...

7. Aldridge & Ors as Trustees of the SL & KM Aldridge Family Trust v Boe [2010] NZWHT Auckland 31 [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...focus of this particular claim is the vendor warranty contained in clause 14.2 the Agreement for Sale and Purchase for the subject dwelling which provides: The Vendor warrants and undertakes that: 14.2 Where the Vendor has done or caused or permitted to be done on the property any works for which a permit or building consent was required by law; (a) The required permit or consent was obtained; or (b) The works were completed in compliance with that permit or consent...

8. AB v CD Ltd [2022] NZDT 87 (23 June 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...18. Second, that there were significant window defects, because some windows were painted shut, cable-tied shut, or had gaps causing draughts. On this point I too am persuaded by CDL’s evidence which included the following points: a. CDL was permitted to make a visual inspection only; to ensure items don’t fall or damage doesn’t result a pre-purchase inspection would therefore not include opening windows; b. all windows in the home, apart from the aluminium patio door, are...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 078 Remediation (NZ) Limited v Taranaki Regional Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...from illegal activities which could not form part of the existing environment. She cited caselaw to that effect, which I need not discuss for the moment. She also proceeded to analyse whether certain activities were indeed illegal as being permitted activities or authorised under the existing consents, but again these matters might depend on continuing examination of evidence previously filed and possibly further evidence to be exchanged after the 7 Paragraph [50] of its subm...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 90 OSS Ltd v Arthur [pdf, 264 KB]

    ...preliminary only and made only for the purposes of the present application. [19] OSS says the Authority erred in determining that any grievance was an unjustified dismissal, as opposed to an unjustified disadvantage. It would be unfair if OSS was permitted to argue this limited point, but Mr Arthur could not argue that the dismissal was justified not only on the basis of flaws with regard to potential redeployment but on the grounds he has raised previously. [20] OSS proposes to...