Search Results

1. Wu v CAC 20005 & Li [2013] NZREADT 79 [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...front of Ms Wu’s property would be blocking most of her view. 3 [10] Mr Clark also told the Committee that he went to great lengths to ensure that any purchaser was fully informed because, he said, there would have been problems with his resource consent if this condition had not been included. [11] The licensee told the Committee that the complainant visited the property on three or four different occasions prior to purchasing it. He said he provided her with all relevant...

2. [2014] NZEmpC 209 McLennan v New Zealand Post Ltd [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...some inquiries himself. 8 [15] The meeting was held on 10 May 2013. Mr McLennan was supported by Mr Thomson. Mr Butchart conducted the meeting. Also in attendance was Mr McLennan’s direct manager, Nigel Burton, and Lisa Whooley from Human Resources (HR). 6 At [12]. 7 At [13]. 8 At [18]. [16] The Authority recorded Mr McLennan’s responses to the four allegations, as follows: (a) With regard to the assertion...

3. Summary of submissions: Regulations to give effect to the new alcohol laws [pdf, 591 KB]

   ...agreement with the proposals. 74. Seven submitters proposed that the fees relating to young people should be raised to between $500 and the maximum $1000. This has not been progressed as the proposals take into account young peoples’ limited financial resources, potential non-payment, subsequent escalation, and potential additional costs for the young person and the criminal justice system. If an unpaid fee is lodged with the court it immediately incurs a $30 filing fee and there is...

4. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...purpose of causing unnecessary embarrassment, distress or inconvenience to any person’s reputation interests or occupation, including the complainants’. [76] Mr CS wanted to be paid. He initiated appropriate processes in Mr DH’s name, and resources were deployed accordingly. [77] The evidence does not support a finding that Mr CS contravened rule 2.3. [78] This aspect of the Committee’s decision is confirmed. Rule 11.1 and 13.1 [79] Rule 11.1 prohibited Mr CS from enga...

5. Heta - Taiharuru 4C3B (2010) 13 Taitokerau MB 203 (13 TTK 203) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...owners’ aspirations. [30] As I say, I consider a hybrid partition to be a reasonable alternative to Mr Heta’s proposal. It is therefore open to me to dismiss the application. Ordinarily, the owners might then be expected to apply under the Resource Management Act 1991 (“1991 Act”) for a subdivision outside the purview of the Court. That would be expensive and time-consuming and invites some uncertainty as separate titles may not be approved. Given this Court’s responsi...

6. Hawke v ACC [2013] NZACA 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...set out in the application for leave to appeal, are applicable to applications before the Authority also. As is the caveat that Authority has an extensive discretion in the grant or refusal of leave so as to ensure proper use of scarce judicial resources. [16] I was not referred to any case law in respect of the principles applicable to questions of public or general importance, however, in the present case, some of the public interest considerations discussed in cases involving...

7. Transcript of speeches KG Smith [doc, 91 KB]

   ...including misconduct, restraint of trade, industrial action, mergers, vicarious liability and workplace health and safety. So, obviously employment law is your principal area of practice but you also have experience in civil and criminal litigation and resource management law. Your Honour has many many years of court experience and you have appeared in a variety of courts and tribunals including the Fisheries Quota Appeal Authority, the full Court of the Employment Court and the Court of Appea...

8. [2011] NZCA 14 CA405/2010 Idea Services Ltd v Dickson [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...who in a particular ―workweek‖ works for his or her employer. There is therefore some 31 At 168. 32 At 171–172. 33 At 172. 34 At 171–172. 35 See Chevron USA v Natural Resources Defence Council 467 US 837 (1984) and the discussion in Wool Board Disestablishment Company v Saxmere [2010] NZCA 513 at [114]–[115]. 36 At 171. greater basis for averaging over that particular unit of time (the ―workweek...

9. KL v WS LCRO 160/2013 (15 June 2016) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...substantial fees. However, taking the matters outlined in rule 9.1 into account I do not consider the fees charged were unfair or unreasonable overall. [77] The proceeding was complex and involved multiple defendants. A significant amount of time and resources were required to ensure Ms WS fulfilled her professional obligations to Mr KL. The matter was important to Mr KL. His freedom was at stake, and his financial position in jeopardy. [78] Ms WS advised Mr KL of her best guess...

10. JR v SW LCRO 91/2014 (27 March 2015) [pdf, 99 KB]

    ...reviewing the pleadings, experts’ reports and witness briefs, concluded that the litigation was both factually and legally complex, and rated the difficulty of the litigation at a high level such as to “justify the application of significant legal resource”.11 [74] Mr YT, who had reviewed the statements of claim and opening submissions, concluded that the case was factually and legally complex, and considered that a number of the legal issues raised by the case were novel....