Search Results

1. [2020] NZIACDT 17 - XA v Hill (10 March 2020) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...PRELIMINARY [1] It is alleged that Ms Hill, the adviser, used an unlicensed employee within her office, her life partner, to engage with her client, the complainant, and also to do immigration work that only a licensed adviser is allowed to perform. Furthermore, that she was negligent in permitting incorrect information regarding the complainant’s work experience to be provided to Immigration New Zealand. [2] The essential issue to consider is one of credibility, being whether Ms...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 6 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...a legal adviser has a privilege in respect of any communication between the person and the legal adviser if the communication was— (a) intended to be confidential; and (b) made in the course of and for the purpose of— (i) the person requesting or obtaining professional legal services from the legal adviser; or (ii) the legal adviser giving such services to the person. (1A) The privilege applies to a person who requests professional legal services from a legal adviser...

3. Dixon v Dixon [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...assessor’s report and the repairs section, 15.6.2 and say the repairs are to modify design faults which should not be attributed to any installation by Harvey Roofing. There are no moisture readings showing water ingress through any of the flashings. Information indicates ingress of water via the cladding and window flashings and the unflashed parapet. Therefore, AHI say that there was no defect in the workmanship of Harvey Roofing. 23. The assessor has recommended, in relation to...

4. Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 53 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...now revoking, deeming Mr Savage’s application for review “unacceptable” now that the relevant decision had been revoked. There is no record of Mr Savage applying to review the 14 November 1998 decision. [8] On 3 February 2014, Mr Savage requested further lump sum compensation on the basis that he had received new medical evidence that the 1988 lump sum payment was inadequate. The new medical evidence referred to arose in the context of a District Court judgment on his enti...

5. Form 14 Waitangi Tribunal Application [pdf, 459 KB]

   Version 19 – September 2022 page 1 He tono āwhina pūtea rōia mō ngā whakawā o te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi 09/22 form 14 Legal aid file No. Lead Provider’s Reference Application for Legal Aid for Waitangi Tribunal Proceedings To: Legal Aid DX SX10146 Welllington 1. He aha te nama Wai kua whakaritea mō te kerēme i mua i te aroaro o te Rōpū Whakamana i te Tiriti? (Mēnā kāore anō te nama kia whakaritea, tukua mai ā...

6. TC v F Ltd LM [2021] NZDT 1590 (12 August 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...fail to meet the acceptable quality standard. What about the fact that LM also represented that it had a current warrant? 8. Having a current warrant is a legal requirement. LM is required to get the warrant and must as a matter of necessity inform TC that the requirement has been met. I do not accept TC’s view that this means that LM is guaranteeing the warrant is validly issued or that the vehicle is in fact road legal. That is not fair to LM who is not required to guarantee t...

7. MT v CE Ltd [2022] NZDT 141 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...find that MT is entitled to the sum of $421.48 for a refund of the original fees, plus damages for the extra costs involved in setting up with a new provider. Referee: K Rendall Date: 15 August 2022 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

8. EQ v MT Ltd [2022] NZDT 45 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...observed that some of the truck loads of fill delivered were not clean fill but were contaminated with building materials. He discussed this with TG, from MT Ltd, and was initially assured that this would be remedied. However, on 22 December 2022 TG informed him that MT Ltd was removing its equipment, and would not complete the job, remove the contaminated fill, or remedy other damage done to the property. 2. EQ claims the sum of $30,000.00 for the cost of remedial work, and completion...

9. ON v MB Ltd [2023] NZDT 132 (5 May 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...what some of the coins were advertised at on online auctions in the States. Conclusion 12. As ON has not proven his claim it is dismissed. Referee: Cowie DTR Date: 5 May 2023 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

10. BN v NI [2022] NZDT 130 (22 August 2022) [pdf, 195 KB]

    ...done to determine whether there was a leak anywhere else in the heat pump. The assessments and tests showed no leak. Subsequent to this, BN took possession of the property. 9. BN’s evidence that there was a leak relied upon the inspection performed by C of CB Company. C gave evidence at the hearing too. Her evidence was that by this time there definitely was a leak in the heat pump and there was no cost-effective option other than replacing it. There were leak and water marks on the...