Search Results

1. DM Ltd v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 172 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...provided by P Ltd, and/or its agents, appeared to show that net rents were approximately $5,000 per annum higher than the true position. The Real Estate Agent for the sale was CC, an employee of H Ltd, who was implicated in the provision of the information to DM Ltd. 3. On 2 November 2021, DM Ltd applied to the Tribunal seeking recovery of its losses from P Ltd. Losses arose when DM Ltd overpaid for the property based on the disclosures made about the rental yields. The assumed val...

2. Steele v Commissioner of Police (Jurisdiction) [2025] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...[1] In June 2021 Mr Steele filed these four proceedings in the Tribunal under the Privacy Act 2020 (2020 Act). In each proceeding Mr Steele alleges an interference with his privacy, arising from the responses of Police to information privacy requests he made under the Privacy Act 1993 (1993 Act). [2] All of the proceedings involve complaints which had been investigated by the Privacy Commissioner (Commissioner) and in respect of which the Commissioner had concluded his investi...

3. BN & NP v NT [2024] NZDT 316 (6 May 2024) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...Further comments include: “At some stage the accessway has also been widened to allow for vehicles passing. This has resulted in an increase in low permeable area, and the grass swales have been flattened and filled with limestone, altering the performance of the stormwater controls.” 30. Of particular note, the Conclusions and recommendations section of the report of 03 August 2023 states: “Due to the nature of the site some stormwater run off is to be expected. However, we be...

4. Algie & Others v ACC [2013] NZACA 6 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...claimed. [10] The appeal was founded on there being no financial outlay, but the services had to be “actual” to have any chance of coming within ss 121(1) and 80(1). There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Corporation had ever formed the view that the services and attendances were not performed, and the wording of the standard form decision letters and the payment of attendant care by the same 3 caregivers for 18 of the appellants under the later legisl...

5. LN v N Family Trust and others [2023] NZDT 503 (18 September 2023) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...possible to persons lawfully on the property. Any such entry does not authorise LN or any person to cut down, lop or injure any tree or shrub on [Address 1] without the consent of the N Family Trust. 11. LN is to keep the N Family Trust reasonably informed about the progress with the preparation for building the fence and should give The Trust at least three days’ notice before work commences. Reasons: 12. The parties are next door neighbours. LN owns and lives in [Address 2]...

6. [2018] NZEmpC 84 GSTech Ltd v A Labour Inspector of the MBIE [pdf, 285 KB]

   ...OF CHIEF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS Introduction [1] The Labour Inspector brought an action in the Employment Relations Authority against GSTech Ltd (GSTL) and Mr Sharma, the plaintiff company’s sole director and shareholder, on behalf of a former employee, Mr Kumar. The action spanned a number of claims, focusing on a claim that Mr Kumar had not been paid for his hours of work at the minimum wage. [2] The Authority dismissed all of the Labour Inspector’s claims.1 It did, h...

7. GF Ltd v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 204 (26 April 2023) [pdf, 163 KB]

   ...incompetent advice in relation to the ERA matter and/or by providing inadequate representation before the ERA? • If so, is D Ltd liable to pay a refund of all or part of the fees paid for the ERA case? • Is GF Ltd liable to pay damages in the form of an ‘early termination’ fee for GF’s cancellation, in early 2022, of the fixed term contract? Did D Ltd breach its contract with GF Ltd/IU Ltd by providing poor or incompetent advice in relation to the ERA matter and/or by pr...

8. Ngāti Taimanawaiti Māori Incorporation - Lot 2 DP 29547 (9 Old North Road, Orewa) (2016) 135 Taitokerau MB 20 (135 TTK 20) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...under review [8] On 4 May 2016, a Deputy Registrar wrote a letter to the applicants rejecting the injunction application. That letter states: 135 Taitokerau MB 22 Thank you for filing the above injunction application in our Auckland Information Office on 6 April 2016. Upon review of your application the following matters have been considered by the Court: (a) Does the Court have jurisdiction? (i) The land of which the injunction relates to is claimed as Lot 2 DP 2...

9. KH & KX v MX [2022] NZDT 63 (5 June 2022) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)). These provisions then reinforce the position of buyer beware in private sales except in limited circumstances. 8. If the buyer can establish that a misrepresentation was made in the process of the contract being formed, then the buyer can make a claim. Section 35 of the CCLA provides that when a buyer has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent that person is entitled to damages as if the representation w...

10. F Ltd v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 374 (28 July 2023) [pdf, 117 KB]

    ...work at all. He rejected the suggestion the two of them had ever been friends. He later said that BQ had come to his premises to drink kava, and on that occasion did some work on some light fittings. That work took at most about an hour and was performed while drinking kava in between. 5. BQ, as the applicant, bears the burden of proving his claim on the balance of probabilities. It needs to be ‘more likely than not’ that his version of events is true. 6. BQ acknowledged that...