Search Results

1. Rossi v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Strike-Out Application) [2016] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...bail by living with his girlfriend and was remanded in custody pending the trial. Mr Rossi claims he had no ability to preserve his immigration status while in prison. He also says he was advised by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) that he could only request visa waiver from the Minister under s 61 of the Immigration Act 2009. The Minister declined to consider that request. [2] Mr Rossi was found guilty on one charge of assault and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for a period of eig...

2. Nicholson v Pene - Tauakira No. 2M No.4 (2023) 477 Aotea MB 140 (477 AOT 140) [pdf, 442 KB]

   ...valuable consideration (or quid pro quo) passes between the parties; and where there is an intention to create legal relations. Once these elements are present, there will usually be a legally binding contract. [43] Once a valid contract is formed, the courts are reluctant to intervene and supervise the agreement made by the parties. Equally, the courts will not disturb the bargain struck, even if manifestly unfair to the reasonable, objective person. The obvious exception to th...

3. DT & Ors v MU [2025] NZDT 24 (17 January 2025) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...abnormalities of the supraspinous ligament, lumbar facet joints or dorsal sacral ligaments, which would indicate that the condition was not caused by falling after rearing. d) MU has presented a considerable amount of evidence of [the horse] performing well at equestrian events prior to sale and I accept there was no indication of poor behaviour indicating back pain. It is unfortunate that [the horse] appears to have had a latent condition that only became evident after the sale. The ve...

4. NI & QI v SB [2024] NZDT 60 (14 February 2024) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...The Tribunal hears disputes between parties. Hearings are in front of Tribunal Referees who run the hearings. If the parties are unable to reach an agreement between themselves before or during the hearing, the Referee will make a decision on the information it has before it. 20. In the emails to the Tribunal, SB say he has left for [overseas city] where he is working in the mines. N Ltd says they were not told this – he had not mentioned this in his February emails to N Ltd. He did...

5. ON v M Ltd [2025] NZDT 138 (3 March 2025) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...November 2023. By 29 December 2023, ON noticed threads starting to come out in different areas of the couch. She emailed M Ltd of her concerns. However, she said that she did not receive a response from M Ltd until May 2024. M Ltd sent ON a claim form which she filled out. M Ltd advised ON that the issue was with the material so it should be investigated by the manufacturers of the material. In June 2024, a representative from X Ltd visited ON’s home to inspect the couch. On 2 September...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 207 Hutton and Others v Provencocadamus Ltd (in receivership) [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...advising that Ms Makaea (payroll administrator) had taken over responsibility for “processing the 11 Emphasis added. Payroll for all ProvencoCadmus staff effective from 11th August”, and requesting receipt of leave application and Inland Revenue forms (amongst other things). Mr Corrick sent out a further email later that day, having first passed a draft through Mr Gibson. 12 It emphasised that the “ProvencoCadmus” payr...

7. BB v TS Ltd [2024] NZDT 828 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...surface, the rot is under the ground. BB considered that subsequent builders were easily able to find the rot, however, they had the advantage of being able to remove the cladding and removed the sand to expose the pile. TS Ltd was not engaged to perform that service, but rather was to provide an opinion only on what it could see. I find that TS Ltd provided what it agreed to and provided no opinion of the condition of the piles below the ground level. I am therefore satisfied that TS...

8. TM v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 494 (3 July 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...D Ltd had done. He said that therefore D Ltd had removed signs that it had not supplied. 12. However, there is no evidence to support TM’s claim that he rejected the signs for being the wrong colour of blue and D Ltd said it had never been informed of this concern prior to the hearing at the Disputes Tribunal. 13. The written evidence supplied by D Ltd supports this interpretation as there are a number of messages from TM suggesting he would pay for the work, including an email...

9. Baker v High Court (Strike-Out Application) [2021] NZHRRT 56 [pdf, 543 KB]

   ...could lead to the identification of the plaintiff in these proceedings is prohibited. [34.2] There is to be no search of the Tribunal file without leave of the Chairperson or of the Tribunal. The plaintiff and the defendants are to be notified of any request to search the file and given opportunity to be heard on that application. [34.3] Leave is reserved to all parties to make further application should the need arise. ............................................ Mr RPG Haines...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 228 NZ Meat Workers Union Inc v South Pacific Meats Ltd and Talley [pdf, 177 KB]

    ...and notes of telephone conversations between the directors of the first respondent and managers of the first respondent in relation to the exercise of statutory rights of access by the applicant. [15] The Authority dealt originally with that request by SPML and Mr Talley as follows: [4] … by application filed in the Authority on 9 April 2015, the Union sought a direction under s.160(1)(a) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) requiring both respondents to forthwith pr...