Search Results

1. Rautangata v Rautangata– Opuatia No 6D No 2D Block (2013) 63 Waikato Maniapoto MB 132 (63 WMN 132) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...chattel, rather than as a fixture and, therefore, that it is not an interest in the land, the question as to whether such an order can be made in favour of a non-owner is moot. There may, however, be further issues as to whether the non-owner is permitted to occupy or use the structure or must remove it from the land. [15] In Stock v Morris – Wainui 2D2B9 the Court preferred to recognise a s 18(1)(a) order as allowing the Court to determine a separate equitable ownership of a fixtu...

2. Kropelnicki v Wellington City Council (Strike-Out) [2021] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...failed to meet the final deadline for filing the amended claim that he claimed an inability to respond in writing. [42] As a lay litigant Mr Kropelnicki is also entitled to some latitude. However, that latitude does not extend so far as to permit the continuation of claims where there is no real likelihood the claim will be brought to a conclusion in the foreseeable future. [43] Mr Kropelnicki is engaged in litigation he has not progressed. There comes a point where to leave the...

3. LCRO - Guidelines for parties to review [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...by a Lawyers Standards Committee or a Conveyancers Standards Committee on complaints that are made. 3. The purposes of the complaints and discipline system under the Act includes processing and resolving complaints as expeditiously as circumstances permit and in appropriate cases by negotiation, conciliation or mediation. The role of the LCRO and its procedures need to be viewed in light of these purposes. 4. The LCRO must discharge the functions of the office with as little formality and...

4. MVDT Annual Report 2013-2014 [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...the purchaser discovered that it was not a rare N1 model but a stock standard Nissan GTR. The trader, although acknowledging that it had misrepresented the vehicle as an N1 model claimed that because the purchaser had applied for a special interest permit it was unable to refund the purchaser with his purchase price. The purchaser then discovered seven months after he agreed to buy the vehicle that it was extensively rust damaged and required rust repairs to its underbody estimated to...

5. [2018] NZSSAA 24 (15 May 2018) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...structure that ensures all pension entitlements are paid under the supervision of a nominated official of the paying Government, and remitted to the Government of New Zealand. The Regulations exclude other types of arrangement. Accordingly, the only permitted arrangements do not rely on the beneficiary complying; that avoids creating a potentially costly audit obligation for the Ministry. A limitation of this kind is clearly contemplated by s 123C, when authorising regulations tha...

6. [2008] NZEmpC AC 8B/08 Taylor Worldwide Publishers Ltd (In Liquidation) v von Tunzelman [pdf, 42 KB]

   ...unjustified. [7] In an interlocutory judgment1 the Chief Judge held that because Mr Taylor had obstructed the Authority’s process in a number of ways the nature and scope of the hearing for this challenge should be limited. Mr Taylor was not permitted to challenge the assessment of the quantum of the commissions which the Authority had found was owed to Mr von Tunzelman. Beyond that, the challenge was to proceed in the usual way.

7. VJ & VL v AE LCRO 88 / 2012 (14 May 2013) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...12 As at n 11 at [19]. 13 As at n 12. 14 As at n 12. 7 They challenge the Practitioner’s claim that the resolution they “sought was achievable if [they] had continued with her counsel for a sentence indication that would have permitted [them] to resolve the matter and leave New Zealand in the shortest amount of time possible.” 15 The Applicants wrote that the Practitioner’s “proposed resolution was never on the table,” 16 presumably meaning that there...

8. Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal - Further Decisions [pdf, 536 KB]

   ...insurance contracts means that, even if a shared issue is determined, individual cases still need to be settled separately in respect of the specific damaged property. We consider there is a risk that the Tribunal would be overwhelmed if it were permitted to hear class actions, and its ability to progress other cases would suffer. Further, the Tribunal already has features such as no fees, pro-active case management and funded mediation, which support efficiency and accessibili...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 139 Singh v Singh [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...requirement that the applicants each pay a premium. The reference was probably made by way of explaining the application of the principle. I do not take that point any further. Mr Singh’s submission about piercing the corporate veil if a statute permits that course was linked to the ability to apportion compensation under s 123A of the Act. In other words, to the earlier submission about the respondent being a controlling third party for the purposes of apportioning liability...

10. 2017 NZSSAA 034 (4 July 2017) [pdf, 115 KB]

    ...position in the belief that he or she was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum to the chief executive; and (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor's financial circumstances, to permit recovery. (9B) In subsection (9A), error— (a) means— (i) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the department: (ii) any erroneous act or omission of an officer of the department that occurs during an inve...