Search Results

1. LCRO 23/2021 FY v NU (10 October 2023) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...and did that undertaking prevent him from paying both his fees, and the accounts that he had concluded there was mutual agreement he was to pay? [153] In my view, the undertaking provided by Mr FY demanded of him that he do what the undertaking permitted him to do. It did not provide authority to Mr FY to settle accounts (or pay fees) in accordance with his understanding of the broader agreement that had been reached by his client. [154] As mentioned earlier, in determining what the w...

2. National Standards Committee v Shand [2019] NZLCDT 2 [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...affidavits filed in the High Court. [104] The Committee’s response to that assertion is that the doctrine of legal professional privilege is distinct from duties of confidence such as r 8 and 8.1 which have an independent basis. Those rules do not permit disclosure of confidential information obtained during a client relationship, to the public at large. [105] We find that the rules are clear and accept the Committee’s submission in that regard. It is not necessary to further...

3. [2020] NZEmpC 61 Leota v Parcel Express Ltd [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...to wear, the sort of vehicle he was to drive and restrictions on its signage, the extent to which he was to be contactable by the company, the type of insurance cover he was to have and with whom and for how much, the amount of time off he was permitted to have and when, and the extent of the company’s involvement in any leave arrangements. It also emerged in evidence that Parcel Express audited Mr Leota’s mileage, although Mr Leota was unaware that it was doing so. It remaine...

4. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...[18] Later in October 2005, the claimants also observed that water was entering the lounge at the base of the vented chimney. An inspection of the ridge capping revealed a separation of the butynol capping from the plywood substrate which permitted water to penetrate the house. [19] On 29 November 2005, repairs again were needed and a further replacement to the sheet metal capping was required for the chimney. Scaffolding was then hired so that access could be obtained....

5. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 Recusal (31 August 2016) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...general approach that judicial disqualification is not warranted on the basis of adverse rulings or decisions is also justified by appropriate concerns about proper judicial administration. There is huge potential for abuse if recusal applications were permitted to be predicated on a party’s subjective perceptions regarding a judge’s ruling. [101] We know of no common law jurisdiction which accepts that a judge’s adverse rulings are disqualifying per se. The problem is rather wh...

6. Minute of the Environment Court (dated 17 March 2017) [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...information and any breach would be a matter for the Court rather than a private Pickering v Christchurch City Council [2016] NZEnvC 46. 17 matter between parties. [46] A matter of particular concern for the Court is that while the Direction only permitted disclosure of the Sensitive Information to persons who had entered into the Confidentiality Agreement, Clause 4 of that agreement purported to authorise disclosure of the information to a wider group of persons described as &q...

7. [2019] NZEnvC 203 Director General of Conservation v New Zealand Transport Agency [pdf, 7.8 MB]

   ...Project. All consent applications were assessed as a single bundle. The overall activity status is discretionary. We are obliged to consider the matters outlined in ss 104, 104B (discretionary activities) and 105 and 107, which relate to discharge permits. [27] Our consideration under ss 171 and 104 is subject to Part 2 of the RMA. [28] The relevance of Part 2 to the consideration of applications for resource consent has been considered by the Court of Appeal in RJ Davidson Family Tru...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 154 TUV v WXY [pdf, 512 KB]

   ...step and assessing whether a settlement agreement can be relied on having regard to the “challenge” restrictions to employment settlements provided for by the statutory scheme. As Silber J observed in Horizon:11 … s. 203(2) of the ERA permits the parties to make valid compromise agreements but the word “agreement” must mean a valid agreement and the Employment Tribunal has to ensure that any purported compromise agreement is valid. [43] Subsequently in Dahhan Lady Wis...

9. Kidd v Maori Owners - Whenuanui No 2B [2021] Chief Judges MB 1409 (2021 CJ 1409) [pdf, 356 KB]

   ...Māori Affairs Act 1953 does not support the applicants’ submission that the transfer of a portion of shares in Māori freehold land converts those shares into shares of General land. Counsel further submits that the land transfer system does not permit one undivided block of land in multiple ownership to have two statuses. Te Ture The Law 10 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1189-1211 (2021 CJ 1189-1211) at 1207. 2021 Chief Judge’s MB 1422 [31] The Chief Judge’s jurisdic...

10. [2024] NZEmpC 226 Glenfield College BOT & Ors v Anderson [pdf, 365 KB]

    ...suggests that the parties agreed that Mrs Anderson would work as a permanent employee on a full-time ongoing basis. [50] To put it another way, Mrs Anderson’s IEA expressly guaranteed her 37.5 hours of work per week. Section 67C of the Act permits parties to agree to flexibility in hours of work in relation to days of the week in which work is to be performed and/or for start and finish times of work.9 It does not, however, permit flexibility in relation to guaranteed hours....