Search Results

1. Brown v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 56 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...will not be accepted as being valid for weekly compensation purposes. [40] In Message,4 Judge Walker stated: [133] Judge Maclean, in Irwin, looked at the relationship between Clause 31 and s 15 and upheld the position that the Corporation is permitted to calculate a claimant’s earnings as a shareholder-employee pursuant to s 15(3) of the Act regardless of the IRD returns. [41] In Irwin,5 Judge MacLean stated: [34] … I have concluded that this is not a clause 31 type of situa...

2. LCRO 39/2009 FG v ZS (29 June 2009) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...ZS’ comments could fairly be described as assertive and even coercive. [48] I am not persuaded, however, that they crossed the boundaries of the standards that apply to lawyers for the reason that our legal system is an adversarial one, and permits some latitude in adversarial conduct. One of the fundamental duties 11 of a lawyer is to protect and promote the interests of his or her client to the exclusion of the interests of third parties. It is part and parcel of an adv...

3. LCRO 60/2016 MO v Standards Committee (27 September 2018) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...Committee that a valuation as required by para 8 sch 4 to the Rules was not required on renewal of a loan and that was addressed by the Committee in its decision. In the applications for review the lawyers included the same issue: “LCN Rules do permit differentiation between initial loans and later renewals”. [22] However, Mr QV advised in his written and oral submissions for the review hearing that the “position was not maintained in this review”.

4. KY v DZ LCRO 174/2015 (25 October 2016) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...review is whether Mr DZ’s conduct fell below proper professional standards in any respect. In particular, the Committee identified particular rules as being applicable. Mr KY’s complaint raises questions around the extent to which lawyers are permitted by the rules to 4 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]-[41]. 5 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475, at [2]. 9 communicate directly with clients of...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 071 Fraser Auret Racing v Rangitikei District Council [pdf, 937 KB]

   ...would eventually manufach1re bio­ plastics. [5] Bio-Forestry was attracted to this site because of its close access to the NHv1T and to SH1 and SH-3. [6] The Plan Change as notified was to allow for the establishment of industrial activities as permitted activities subject to a range of environmental performance standards relating to the effects of noise, lighting, earthworks, storage areas and building height. Any non-compliance with an environmental building standard would hav...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 75 Te Whatu Ora Health New Zealand v New Zealand Nurses Organisation Inc [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...ground that the same principles apply to strikes. The section was discussed as follows:9 Section 84 provides exceptions to the otherwise more complex and technical requirements of legality of a lockout set out in ss83 and 86. In summary, s84 permits unions and employees to participate in a strike, and employers to participate in a lockout, if the relevant persons have reasonable grounds for believing that the strike or lockout is justified on the grounds of safety or health. Tw...

7. XL v FJ [2021] NZDT 1618 (22 June 2021) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...has proved to the required standard. XL claims $6,500.00 from FJ, being either the cost of the rebuilding the engine of the [car], or a refund of the purchase price in return for him returning the [car] to FJ. As I explained at the hearing, I am not permitted by s35(1)(a) of the CCLA to cancel the contract, so the only remedy available is compensatory damages. 19. XL says that the engine of the [car] is likely to require an engine rebuild because the engine has overheated and there is...

8. [2020] NZREADT 11 - Catley & Boyle - Ruling (3) (10 March 2020) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...submitted that Mr Boyle should have taken reasonable steps to obtain documents he knew existed, and his failure to do so meant that leave to submit them now should be declined.5 [28] She submitted that both Mr Catley and Mr Boyle now wish to be permitted to produce evidence that was available to them at time of the complaint, merely because they took a casual attitude to preparation of their response to the complaint, or made or approved tactical choices they now regret. [29] Ms...

9. E29 Urban Design and Landscape Architecture JWS [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...consent for lighting; and b. luminated (back-lit) and all variable message or LED screen signage will be covered by the Event Management Plan or subject to separate resource consent or signage bylaw approval. 2.6. No more than two flag poles are permitted for each base (on the base building or its associated yard area), with each: a. extending to not more than 20 metres above finished ground or wharf level; and b. able to accommodate a flag with a total area of not more than 3...

10. Edwards v ACC [2013] NZACA 10 [pdf, 61 KB]

    ...Edwards did not return to work full time after Joanne was born in October 1973 as she did when Fiona was around a year old, and the pattern she developed of part time and relief teaching which continued up to Geoffrey’s birth in 1980 and then as time permitted, throughout his school years, suggests that even under normal circumstances, she may well have changed her plans by the time her youngest child started kindergarten, irrespective of his care needs. [39] There is no evidence b...