Search Results

1. Insley v Insley - Awanui Haparapara No 2B No 1B Sec 2 [2023] Chief Judge's MB 323 (2023 CJ 323) [pdf, 416 KB]

   ...demonstrates that the Court considered all these factors and was satisfied it could exercise its discretion to grant the orders complained of. [53] In considering the factors set out in ss 328 and 329, the lower Court exercised its discretion as permitted by the legislation to grant the orders. In short, the Court acted within its jurisdiction in making the orders, as provided under ss 328 and 329 . [54] Included in the exercise of that jurisdiction are wide discretionary powers. So...

2. LCRO 142/2016 TR v YV (28 November 2018) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...of a court case where the applicant makes her case and provides evidence which is then subject to cross examination. The LCRO regulates his or her procedure in such manner as he or she thinks fit, with as little formality and technicality as is permitted.14 [28] As Mr YV required to be heard in person, the review proceeded as a respondent-only hearing in [City] on 4 October 2018. Ms TR was provided with a copy of the Notice of Hearing but elected not to attend. Delegation [29]...

3. Hunstanton v Cambourne and Chester LCRO 167 / 2009 (10 February 2010) [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...as a customary term of the retainer in the absence of specific agreement to the contrary. [49] A lawyer who intends to impose a premium which would be unexpected to a reasonable client will have to establish as a matter of contract that this is permitted as well as having to establish as a matter of professional conduct that the fee reached is fair and reasonable. It will be difficult to do so if the client was not on notice of a method of billing which is other than the usual time...

4. Director of Human Rights Proceedings [NKR] v Accident Compensation Corporation (Strike-Out Application) [2014] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...interferences with individual privacy”. [19] The complaints process is detailed at length in Part 8 of the Act. The scheme is that in the first instance complaints must be dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner. Proceedings before the Tribunal are permitted by s 82 only where an investigation has 5 been conducted under Part 8 or where conciliation (under s 74) has not resulted in settlement. [20] As pointed out in the Law Commission Review of the Privacy Act 1993: Review of...

5. Gillard v CAC 20003 [2014] NZREADT 4 [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...restrictive covenants. Essentially, it seems that the land is zoned rural, and before a dwelling house could be built on it, there needed to be a new consent under the Resource Management Act. The restrictive covenants applied to aspects of building work permitted on the land and the type of land use. We understood that there could be no intensive farming activity, such as the raising of poultry or pigs. [22] The appellant ascertained that the male complainant was a rural contractor...

6. [2017] NZSAAA 02 (26 June 2017) [pdf, 270 KB]

   ...would in effect allow a student to avoid the clear intent/requirement that academic failure that is not outside the students control does not allow a student to qualify for LFT status under this provision.” Discussion [18] Regulation 12A(1) permits StudyLink to approve payment of an allowance to students who are not enrolled in a full-time course in three situations. First where a student suffers from an illness which renders part time study (appropriate – ie the only feasible...

7. [2011] NZLCDT 9 Canterbury Standards Committee v X [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...respondent also deducted fees from Mr S’s trust account by invoice of 8th April 2004 for $850 plus GST and disbursements. This deduction is also a matter included in the charges. [12] The respondent did not claim he had any written authority permitting the debiting of fees. He said he had posted his fee invoices to Mr S (as executor for the estate work the respondent had undertaken, and in his personal capacity for the separate work undertaken for Mr S by the respondent), as re...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 33 Saipe v Bethell [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...letter raised the grievance on the date that it was delivered to the Cottages’ post office box, being 29 November 2013. [29] He says further that if the grievance was raised outside the prescribed 90-day period then leave should be granted to permit him to pursue it. [30] In summary, Ms Bethell argues: (a) Mr Saipe’s dismissal was effective on 24 August 2013. (b) His email of 26 August 2013 raised his personal grievance for unjustifiable dismissal. (c) The Authority...

9. EV v VJ LCRO 181 / 2010 (31 August 2011) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...was accompanied by her son. At that hearing, I requested the Respondent to leave his files with me to review, and following that review, I formulated questions that I wished the Respondent to address at a further hearing. The Applicant was not permitted to attend this hearing as the files provided were privileged as between the respondent and EW, and I made an interim order accordingly pursuant to section 208(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006. This order is now made perman...

10. Harland v ACC [2012] NZACA 2 [pdf, 62 KB]

    ...approach that the 1982 Act had a threshold for attendant care of “constant personal attention” at or about 24 hours per day need. The later Acts had a substantially more flexible approach and in the case of the 1992 Act, the Regulations only permitted payment of attendant care up to 40 hours per week. [19] Mr Davis said that he could say with certainty, that ACC did consider the applicant’s case against each of the 1982, 1992 and 1998 Acts, and concluded that she did not req...