Search Results

1. HM v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1553 (3 August 2021) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...that HM has paid DI on the invoice. I therefore award damages of $1,650.00 for HM’s towing costs. 20. HM claims $100.00 for two trips to hospital and $87.00 for Doctor’s fees. I dismiss HM’s claim for these costs because the Tribunal is not permitted under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 to award damages for personal injury. Conclusion 21. For these reasons, I award total damages of $13,740.00 to HM. These damages are to be paid by B Ltd by the date set out in the order. I...

2. [2018] NZSSAA 19 (7 May 2018) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...requested the assistance of the Regional Health Team, which conducted the review, because the appellant continued to ask for additional costs to be included in her Disability Allowance. [44] In our view, a request for further assistance does not permit the Chief Executive to conduct a review of entitlement under s 81. Such a request can only trigger an assessment of whether or not that request should be granted. There was no justification for using the appellant’s request for...

3. NT v Standards Committee LCRO 131/2014 (21 November 2014) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...any time up until the hearing, despite what I am satisfied were several prior challenges by the defendants. It is fair to say that part of the reason for this was the fact that this must have been one of the first claims under the 2009 Rules which permit claims to be filed without a full and proper articulation of their legal foundation. [11] He described the claims as lacking legal or substantive merit, or being lodged out of time.14 [12] He then said that: 15 [t]he whole c...

4. Richard Mayer v Complaints Assessment Committee 304 [2017] NZREADT 44 [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...investigator, and his location overseas, he had not been able to contact Mr Bell and that the aspects of the complaint relating to the Family Court proceeding “may have to be raised by you with him directly”. Mr Mayer went on to say that “if permitted” he could provide comments from Mr Bell, “once I have made contact with Andrew if that is what you prefer”. Further, in his response to the investigator, Mr Mayer strongly challenged Mr File’s assertions concerning the af...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 36 Detection Services Ltd v Pickering [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...introduce a new subject and issue for the Court’s determination, which is materially different to those which the parties have elected to challenge pursuant to s 179. Secondly, that the plaintiff has no good and/or just excuse why it should be permitted to elect another part of the Authority’s determination which it previously elected not to challenge, particularly given that the applicant was aware of the time limits and was legally represented. Thirdly, it is submitted that...

6. [2018] NZLCDT 18 National Standards Committee v Shi [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...practitioner”), of Auckland, pursuant to s 241(a) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006, with misconduct. Particulars: [redacted]. [13] Counsel for the practitioner did not object to the filing of a further charge subject to his being permitted to make the submission that it might represent duplication. [14] Counsel for the Standards Committee referred the Tribunal to the straight definition of misconduct under s 241(a), which is contained in s 7 of the Act. Counsel rel...

7. Joint Protocol Ministry of Justice and Department of Child, Youth and Family [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...and where a proper interest has been established. (iv) Other relevant search provisions are rule 95 of the Domestic Violence Rules and s 23 of the Adoption Act 1955. Criminal proceedings (i) Section 71 of the Summary Proceedings Act permits a certified copy of convictions to be provided to any person with a genuine or proper interest in respect of summary criminal proceedings in the District Court. (ii) The Criminal Proceedings (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009 go...

8. OWRUG & Grape Vision Ltd - EiC - J Dicey - Horticulture (4 Feb 2021) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...casual jobs have also been created due to this investment. 57. Short terms associated with water consents will compromise the values of vineyards and make development of additional productive area prohibitive. The costs of securing the short term permits are rapidly escalating and will redirect money to funding these applications rather than developing more productive land. 58. Water is applied in a very effective and efficient manner in accordance with industry best practice. Add...

9. Romford v Marlborough LCRO 123 / 2009 (15 December 2009) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...the duty of confidence in Rules 8.2 and 8.4. However, I do not consider that any of those exceptions applies here. Had Mr Marlborough believed that he was at risk then it would have been appropriate to disclose that on the basis of r 8.2(b) which permits disclosure if “the lawyer reasonably believes that disclosure is necessary to prevent a serious risk to the health or safety of any person”. [40] I also recognise that it is proper to be open to other exceptions to the duty of...

10. LCRO 216/2020 YH v DP (29 July 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...mother’s law firm XYZ]. The Committee was of the view that while Mr DP’s fees were high, that was not a reason, in and of itself, to declare special circumstances. [27] The Committee correctly identified that only “special circumstances” permit assessment of fees issued more than two years prior to a complaint being lodged. It also correctly stated that “special circumstances must be abnormal, uncommon, or out of the ordinary.”4 [28] However, I have some difficulty dis...