Jonathan Pow and Isabella van Woerkom discuss the recent Supreme Court decision in Southland Indoor Leisure Centre Charitable Trust v Invercargill City Council.
If you have an unresolved insurance claim you may need to act fast.
Under New Zealand's limitation legislation (the Limitation Act 1950 and the Limitation Act 2010), you can only bring a claim within six years from the date of the event that leads to your dispute. If you bring a claim outside that time, limitation provides a complete defence.
There has been a lot of media attention recently, in the lead up to the Rio Olympics, about athletes who may be able to compete as 'neutrals' where their national sporting body has been banned from competing.
So, just what is a 'neutral athlete'?
A recent selection dispute which made its way to the New Zealand Sports Tribunal has highlighted the need for sports bodies, athletes, and the members of sports bodies to pay careful attention to selection criteria and procedures within their operative rules.
The High Court, in Prattley Enterprises Limited v Vero Insurance has had its first opportunity to determine whether an insured is able to reopen a settled insurance claim.
In short, the Court said that 'no'; an insured could not reopen its claim once it had signed a binding cash settlement agreement. The reasons why the Court came to this decision are worth noting.
In recent years, match-fixing has reared its ugly head as very real threat to sport globally.Cricket, unfortunately, has borne the brunt of a lot of recent media attention over match-fixing and it is timely that, with the Cricket World Cup 2015 ("CWC 2015") recently ending, we acknowledge recent measures taken to reduce the threat of match-fixing in New Zealand.
The Cricket World Cup is now upon us! This is the first in a series of 3 articles which teases out a number of topical legal issues which impact on the Cricket World Cup.
With the Cricket World Cup 2015 now underway, and the FIFA Under 20 Football World Cup looming on the horizon, 2015 is shaping up to be a big year for New Zealand hosting large, international sporting events.
It is very common for disputes to arise between members of societies. It is also quite common for a society's rules to be inadequate to properly deal with those disputes. This creates uncertainty as to how the dispute can be properly resolved both from the society and a member's point of view. The consequence is numerous complaints by members that they haven't been treated fairly or been properly heard.
The governance of a society is the running of a society.
Until now, the legislation was silent on a society's governance, specifically the duties and obligations owed by officers to societies. This is set to change. It is likely that officer's duties in the reformed legislation will be specified and will be similar to company director's duties under the Companies Act.
The vast majority of local, regional and national sports organisations are set up as incorporated societies under the current Incorporated Societies Act 1908 (the "Act"). The Law Commission proposed reforms for this uncomfortably old piece of legislation which were tabled in Parliament on 21 August 2013. On 28 February 2014, the Government accepted almost all of the recommendations in the Law Commission's report. The recommendations will provide a very strong foundation for the Government to progress much needed reform of the Act and are unlikely to provoke any political controversy. The new legislation should come into force soon.
Whilst it may create little political controversy, it will be very important for sporting organisations (and societies generally) to understand the reform as it will very likely have an impact on their rules, governance and administration matters.
Over the next three articles, we look at what the proposed reform holds in store. Firstly, we discuss generally the benefits of benefits of incorporation and the proposed reform. Secondly, we look at more detail into how the changes will affect the governance of societies, new annual obligations that societies will need to meet, and addressing conflicts of interest. Thirdly and finally, we look at the features of the proposed reform on procedures for dispute resolution, the distribution of societies' assets on termination and provide an overall wash-up as to the need for societies to review their rules to see how they fit with the proposed reform.
The Court of Appeal has recently considered this question, albeit at a very preliminary level.
In 2006, the Grey District Council built an aquatic centre in Greymouth. Unfortunately, the roof of the centre was built with deficiencies. Untreated timber was used for the roof beams and at the point where aluminium and steel fixings were attached to the beams, the steel nails had corroded.
The council sued its engineering company, a second engineering company (engaged by the first engineers to peer review the construction design), and an employee of the second engineering company who issued a producer statement for design to the council (the "defendants").
IAG have successfully appealed an earlier decision not to strike out an insurance broker's claim for cover under his professional liability cover. The broker had failed to place cover for his client homeowners, but made a number of assurances to them that cover was in place. The homeowners were left uninsured for subsequent earthquake damage to their house. The homeowners were successful in their claim against the broker for their loss.
A recent decision of the High Court Earthquake List in Christchurch has considered the interests of a tenant under its landlord's insurance policy.
A recent decision of the High Court in Christchurch shows that difficulties for vendors and purchasers remain where the property suffers damage before the property changes hands.
Recently a demolition business owner had three of his trucks destroyed by arson. Unfortunately, whilst the business has insurance for the damage to the trucks, it has no cover for the business it will lose with three of its fleet out of action.
Earthquake damage has thrown into question the adequacy of many home and business owners' insurance cover. Some property owners have placed cover through an insurance broker. If the cover has proved to be inadequate, these owners may well be looking for an answer from their broker.
The High Court at Greymouth has recently found that a council does have a case to answer where it incorrectly certifies conditions of subdivision have been met and a subsequent purchaser of the land relies on those certifications.
"Opting-out" of the Fletcher / EQC managed earthquake damage home repairs may seem like the relief that some anxious earthquake damaged homeowners are desperately seeking. However, while it certainly serves as a useful alternative, there are risks that a homeowner must carefully consider before "leaping up to opt-out" and it may not necessarily be suitable for all.
Mr Watkin was a tenant in a property which was damaged by the 22 February 2011 earthquake. The property was left without electricity for 5 days, water or sewerage for 10 days or a usable toilet for 3 weeks. The garage was also damaged. Mr Watkin was also concerned the chimney might also collapse into the house. He sought compensation (an abatement of rent) from the Tenancy Tribunal under the Residential Tenancies Act. The question to be decided was whether his house was 'uninhabitable'.