Search Results

1. Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...element; it shows PEL knew or suspected that he intended to use his rights under the HRA. [42] The pleaded facts, if assumed to be true, do not however show the third element above. Mr Brown has not pleaded or referred to any facts which would permit a finding that the less favourable treatment was because of his intention or suspected intention to use his rights under the HRA. Mr Brown’s claim does not plead there is any link between the threats of trespass and provocation by...

2. VJ v JT LCRO 279/2014 (2 September 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...the proceeding, and because the judge considered it inappropriate. He refers to what he describes as the: … judge’s growing irritation with Ms JT’s line of questioning and records his sharp admonishment to her that he was “not going to permit” Ms JT to continue her questioning of the witness. The admonishment recorded is not one which indicates irrelevance was worrying the judge but how indeed Ms JT was conducting the whole cross-examination. [23] Mr VJ also said a...

3. BE v D Ltd & DO Ltd [2024] NZDT 230 (25 March 2024) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...chain change. The prior model was no longer manufactured and therefore no longer supplied to DO Ltd, and DO Ltd did not have remaining stock on hand. I accept there was therefore no option available to DO Ltd to install an ONT model that permitted the cabinet door to close with the power plug configuration within BE’s cabinet; CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 6 f. however, the power plug configuration was not within the scope of DO Ltd’s work, nor was D...

4. [2016] NZSSAA 057 (16 June 2016) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...been satisfied by 26 August 2015. It was therefore appropriate for the Chief Executive to suspend the appellant’s benefit entitlements in New Zealand from that date. [47] The appellant is particularly aggrieved that the rules governing the CPF permit the withdrawal of funds held in a lump sum in certain circumstances, particularly if the 10 person is not a citizen and leaves Singapore or the person renounces their Singapore citizenship. Whereas, a person who has elected t...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 177 Connor-Kingi v Whangarei District Council [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...an application for a change of consent conditions, or on a review of consent conditions: (a) the applicant or consent holder: (b) any person who made a submission on the application or review of consent conditions: (c) in relation to a coastal permit for a restricted coastal activity, the Minister of Conservation. … [30] However, s 274 of the RMA enables those who have an interest in the proceedings that is greater than the general public has to seek to be heard on an appeal,...

6. Edwards v Ross - Waikite 3A (2023) 293 Waiariki MB 110 (293 WAR 110) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...they had to be removed within three months of the meeting. When asked what would occur if the buildings were not removed, the Council advised that an abatement notice would be issued to all owners. [13] Jimmy was not at the meeting, as he was not permitted to take his support person, Theresa, with him into the meeting. [14] The Council’s position was then reaffirmed in writing in a letter dated 22 July 2022, noting: As agreed by all parties present on the 20/07/2022 (1 member...

7. Director of Proceedings v Pasifika Integrated Healthcare Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 25 [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...job training, orientation & supervision by experience[d] [service co-ordinator].” The defendant’s policies 17. The defendant’s policy “Support Worker Taking Service User to their Own Home” provides that support workers are not permitted to take service users to their own home without seeking permission from their service co-ordinator, and approval can be granted only once the service co-ordinator has discussed it with the service user’s next of kin. 18. The ser...

8. Hume v CAC10054 & Jackson & Wondergem [2013] NZREADT 53 [pdf, 47 KB]

   ...entitled to commission then it would receive the commission. He knew that Mr Vanderhoof was to meet with the then principal of First National, a Mr Steve Carkeek who gave evidence before us on behalf of the appellant. [18] The appellant was not permitted to be involved in negotiations between Re/Max and First National over the commission issue, but was told by Mr Vanderhoof that First National were no longer seeking commission and it therefore belonged to Re/Max. In fact that was not...

9. 2017 NZSSAA 002 (30 January 2017) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...good faith; (d) the beneficiary changed his position believing he was entitled to receive the money and would not have to repay it; and (e) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [18] Pursuant to s 86(9B) of the Act, the term “error” means: (a) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the Ministry; (b) an erroneous act or omission occurring during an investigation of benefit entit...

10. S v L [2017] NZIACDT 3 (4 April 2017) [pdf, 114 KB]

    ...considered that endeavouring to explain and justify the failure to declare the relationship was critical for any real solution. The complainant and the applicant were in a long term relationship, one had residence, the other sought residence, and the work permit was only an incidental issue in the overall situation. The appellant says that while he discussed the issue of the 24 month limit with the complainant and the applicant, they all understood, for obvious reasons, that the issu...