Search Results

1. DG Ltd v ID Ltd [2020] NZDT 1441 (24 August 2020) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal that they were not required to pay anything to ID Ltd. 2. DG Ltd claims that it is not required to pay the invoice from ID Ltd for $552.00, and seeks, in effect, a declaration of non-liability under section 10(1)(b) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. 3. The issues to be determined were as follows: a. Is there a contract between the parties, and if so what are the terms? b. If there is a contract, have the terms of the contract been breach...

2. Practice Note 5 2018 Final [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...Tribunal’s own motion – (clause 20(2), Schedule 2). [9.3] Beyond these limited powers of recall, a decision by the Tribunal is final once notified to the appellant or affected person – (clause 17(6), Schedule 2). 10. DATABASE OF DECISIONS [10.1] In accordance with the requirement to publish its decisions (clause 19(1), Schedule 2), the Tribunal maintains three databases of its decisions (refugee, residence and deportation), at www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/ipt/decisions....

3. [2014] NZEmpC 206 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...the defendant. The orders it seeks are: (a) That the remedies sought by the plaintiff in paras 55(a), (c) and (d) of his fourth amended statement of claim be dismissed on the basis that these remedies vested in the Official Assignee under s 101 of the Insolvency Act 2006 (IA), and that upon the plaintiff’s bankruptcy the Official Assignee determined that there was no merit in pursuing such remedies in this Court. (b) That the remedies sought by the plaintiff in par...

4. NZCVS-Cycle-5-Impact-of-COVID-Perceptions-of-safety.xlsx [xlsx, 121 KB]

   ...safety - Estimates and Sampling error Before COVID-19 nationwide lockdown After COVID-19 nationwide lockdown Perception of safety1 % of adults % MoE (±) % MoE (±) 0 to 6 (least safe) 10.80 0.59 10.63 0.71 7 12.85 0.77 12.04 0.78 8 26.37 1.01 24.42 1.07 9 22.88 0.84 24.08 1.00 10 (most safe) 27.10 0.96 28.84 1.05 # Percentage has a margin of error between 10 and 20 percentage points or the estimate/mean has a relative sampling error between 20% and 50% and should be us...

5. OIA-98433.pdf [pdf, 933 KB]

   ...0 72 304 0 68 293 59 234 53 273 0 45-49 77 362 0 69 335 0 84 376 0 77 372 0 89 347 70 279 63 320 0 50-54 58 296 0 58 290 0 42 311 1 58 316 0 57 304 67 258 62 277 0 55-59 32 206 1 31 198 0 40 182 0 34 235 0 37 269 27 185 42 228 0 60-64 16 94 2 12 101 1 13 116 0 13 122 0 20 159 15 128 22 122 0 65-69 2 48 0 4 61 0 3 64 0 6 83 2 4 67 4 61 10 70 1 70-74 0 10 0 3 22 0 2 14 0 2 23 1 2 27 3 27 2 23 1 75-79 0 3 0 0 4 0 1 7 0 0 5 0 0 6 1 2 0 6 0 80-84 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 Grand...

6. LCRO 161-2016 XS v VS [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Office accepts that a finding of unsatisfactory conduct is viewed seriously by (most) lawyers.7 As noted by Mr JK, it is a finding which remains on a lawyer’s record forever. 6 At [25]. 7 LCRO 101/2010 at [20]. 5 [14] There have been instances where a lawyer has been prepared to voluntarily reduce his or her fees to avoid the imposition of a finding of unsatisfactory conduct. That is a matter of discretion to be exercised b...

7. [2009] NZEmpC AC 47/09 Hyro Services Pty Ltd v Speed [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...The plaintiff sought to distinguish this case from those in which the challenger’s behaviour amounted to intentional obstruction or other destructive/inappropriate behaviour. The plaintiff relied on Taylor v Von Tunzelman [2008] ERNZ 101 for the proposition that for the Court to limit the nature and extent of the hearing of a challenge following a good faith report, the failures must have been deliberate in the sense of being more than the consequence of simple inadverten...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 171 Lanigan v Fonterra Brands (New Zealand) Ltd (Interlocutory (No 3) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...NZLR 239 at [19], [22], and [111] per Glazebrook J. 4 See at [212]; and Takamore v Clark [2012] NZSC 116, [2013] 2 NZLR 733 at [150]. 5 This situation is materially different to GF v Comptroller of the New Zealand Customs Service [2023] NZEmpC 101, [2023] ERNZ 409, where the employer had incorporated a Te Ao Māori perspective throughout its documentation. See also Ellis v R, above n 3, at [125] per Glazebrook J and [273] per Williams J. consider the relevance of tikang...

9. Family-Court-Associates_Family-Court-Amendment-Rules-2024_FINAL.pdf [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...Family Court Associates will be able to make these orders and directions at any stage of a proceeding before the hearing of the substantive application. 10 Family Court Associates will exercise powers in relation to a range of tasks including: 10.1 procedural judicial tasks; these are orders and directions made in straightforward cases, or orders and directions usually made by Registrars that have been referred up due to complexity; and 10.2 matters requiring a greater level of enga...

10. Martin v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 67 [pdf, 211 KB]

    ...applicable to the former. If that were not the case, the appellant’s Australian employer would be an “employer” for the purposes of the ARCI Act. That would then lead to the Australian employer being liable to pay employee premiums under s 101 of the Act. That such is plainly not the case, nor intended to be, reinforces the view that it is only income or earnings which are subject to New Zealand income tax law which can be considered as determining entitlement to weekly compe...