Search Results

1. EQ & LN v SU & BU [2024] NZDT 361 (14 March 2024) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...side of the boundary. 14. Although it was not possible to see any garden beds in these areas or dedicated areas of planting at the site visit, I do accept it is more likely than not there was some planting along the boundary. EQ said that her former mother-in-law had planted along the boundary and so the planting was well established. 15. However, I find that EQ and LN have been unable to establish that a rhododendron was removed. There is at least one rhododendron still in thei...

2. Te Manutukutuku Issue 23 [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...Crown Research Institutes or health sector entities are subject to the protection mechanism. Land owned by regional or territorial authorities, State Owned Enterprises and some tertiary institutions are excluded. The Department of Survey and Land Information (DOSLI) will be responsible for sending a list of all sur­ plus land to iwi at regular intervals. The lists will also be published in national newspapers. Iwi will be given a minimum of 30 days to file their response. Information...

3. [2012] NZEmpC 215 NZ Language Centres Ltd (formerly GEOS NZ Ltd) v Page [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...discussions before Mr Page was publicly and humiliatingly demoted. [28] On 19 December 2008 Mr Page raised by email a personal grievance in response to his treatment during the conference and the implications for his current position. He also requested payment of his unpaid bonus for the 2006/07 year, which he had previously sought. He received no response from anyone at GEOS to his email. [29] In December 2008 Mr Page was invited to Bali to attend what was described as a...

4. T Ltd v N Ltd [2025] NZDT 26 (9 April 2025) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...$500.00 fee it has charged T Ltd is for responding to the claim in the Tenancy Tribunal by the [Address 1] tenant in relation to late payment of bond. N Ltd says there was a delay in paying the bond to the bond centre because of problems with the bond forms provided by the tenants. N Ltd says as soon as those problems were sorted out the bond was paid to the bond centre. It says that the Tenant eventually withdrew the claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, but that it is entitled to charge the $5...

5. CAC 401 v Black & Wong [2016] NZREADT 42 [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...dispute between the two companies. [5] The issues in this case arise out of what happened next. Almost a year after the sale of the property and in July 2013, Mr Smith was in Century 21’s office in Pakuranga when Mr Black approached him and made a request that he pay Mr Black and Mr Wong the sum of $2,000 each. Mr Black said that this was their share of the commission on the property. Mr Smith declined to make this payment. [6] Mr Smith’s evidence is that in August 2013 Mr Blac...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 52 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...to the issues in the proceeding. They say they feel uncomfortable with the defendants knowing all of their financial affairs, in particular because of the breakdown in trust and confidence between them. The plaintiff also submits that such information is not relevant to the defence of the proceedings. [6] The parties agree that if the Court makes orders for non-party discovery, it would also resolve the application for discovery against the plaintiff. [7] In applications such as...

7. LS v MIS [2021] CEIT-2020-0024 [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...lathe linings, and concrete perimeter ring beam and piled foundations. [4] While the extent of the damage is not an issue before me at this stage, it is important to note the effects of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) events, as LS’s claims for damage, and the parties’ interactions regarding these claims, form the background to the election issue. The house was damaged by the 4 September 2010, Darfield earthquake, and the 22 February 2011, Port Hills earthquake.1 (...

8. Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation (Interpretation of decision) [2024] NZACC 41 [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...Howard does not seem to grasp that finality in litigation relates to the substantive complaint. Once a substantive issue has been raised and determined in litigation between the parties it cannot be raised again. Advancing it in the guise of some other form of proceeding or framed as another kind of complaint cannot disguise its true nature. … 5 Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2014] NZSC 2431. 6 Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation [2017] NZACC 76. 4 [25]...

9. KA v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 126 (30 January 2024) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...Ltd also provided a screenshot of metadata relating to one of the photos showing the details of the phone and camera, the time and date of the photograph, and the location at which it was taken. 33. KA says metadata can be altered and provided information about how this can be done. However, all this proves is that KA knows how to alter metadata. It does not prove that Mr and Mrs N know how to do so or did so. I accept their evidence that they did not. 34. KA says the photo o...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 179 George v Auckland Council [pdf, 267 KB]

    ...the employee/contractor issue and the fringe benefit tax issue. Ms George could not recall the meeting, but accepts that it took place. [11] Two reports were subsequently produced by TEAM for the Council. The first, which remained in draft form, was dated 21 December 2007 (the draft December 2007 report). It dealt with the contractor issue. The second was dated 8 February 2008 (the February 2008 report). It dealt with the fringe benefit tax issue. Both reports were sent to M...