Search Results

1. EE v D Ltd & G Ltd [2024] NZDT 862 (9 December 2024) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...manifested only very occasionally. Any issue could reasonably be expected to show itself more often. e. I have considered the fact that [a friend] and NU were topping up coolant in the vehicle, and that this may have masked any issue. However no information is available as to how often and how much the vehicle was topped up by and so this offers no support to the allegations that have been made. Did D Ltd provide its services with reasonable care and skill? 11. The relevant l...

2. G Ltd & YZ v B Ltd [2025] NZDT 55 (27 March 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...deceptive conduct under the FTA or that it breached the contract in any way. Conclusion 19. For the reasons above the claim is dismissed. G Jaduram Disputes Tribunal Referee 27 March 2025 Page 5 of 5 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...

3. LCRO 122/2015 NP v AO (21 May 2018) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...they cost a lot of money”. [10] She and others met Mr AO at Ms T’s home later that day, obtained a key from the neighbour, and undertook “a brief perusal of her effects”. [11] Mrs NP says that when she asked Mr AO later for further information to assist her and her siblings in Australia in possibly making a claim, he did not respond and continued not to return her calls. 3 [12] Mrs NP and her siblings engaged a lawyer who corresponded with Mr AO in October 2014. M...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 73/06 CE Bay of Plenty DHB v NZ PSA [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...contents in seeking solicitor/client costs against the PSA… [7] The letter was faxed to the defendant on the same day. [8] On 30 August 2004, 10.37am the Board’s solicitors received a copy of a letter the PSA had forwarded to the Authority, requesting an extension of time for filing and serving briefs of evidence, to Wednesday, 1 September 2004. At this time the Board had received no response from the PSA to its letter of 26 August. [9] By facsimile dated 30 Augus...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 1 Kilpatrick v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...and the ISC. When they would not agree with Ms Kilpatrick’s interpretation, she stated that she was going to lodge an Operations Occurrence Report (OOR) against her supervising flight attendants in any event. The Captain and the First Officer formed the view that Ms Kilpatrick had it in for Ms Coyle and was intent on causing her trouble. During evidence these matters were not in fact denied by Ms Kilpatrick, although she claims that she did not breach policy by going on to the...

6. LAP contract for services [pdf, 753 KB]

   ...comply with the procedure in the relevant policy, including any requirements to inform the Secretary and find a replacement. 5. Secretary’s obligations 5.1. The Secretary will, once the Secretary has all relevant information that has been requested from the Provider, promptly: 5.1.1. make decisions relating to Approvals 5.1.2. objectively and fairly deal with Legal Aid Complaints in accordance with clause 9 of this Contract, the Complaints Management policy in the Provider...

7. ABW and ABX v ZYG [2013] NZDT 123 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 37 KB]

   ...agreement were that the Applicants would pay $150.00 per week to cover the room, power, water, telephone, etc. This agreement was not evidenced in writing. The agreement came to an end on 11 July 2011 when the Applicants moved out following a request from the Respondent to do so on 3 July 2011. [2] The Applicants claim that in December 2009 they paid a $450.00 bond to the Respondent and they seek a return of this money. The Respondent denies that a bond was asked for or paid...

8. [2010] NZEmpC 154 Villegas v Visypak (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...also a union delegate. His terms and conditions were contained in the Visypak (NZ) Ltd Collective Employment Agreement 2008-2011 (the CA). [4] On 5 September 2008 he received a written warning for an incident on his fork hoist that Visypak claimed should have been reported as a near miss. It found that he had driven across a wet floor in such a manner that he had lost control of the fork hoist, slid sideways and nearly struck a mobile floor scrubber that was being driven by a...

9. Dooney v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 237 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Hearing: 30 November 2022 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: M Williams for the Appellant J Sumner for the Accident Compensation Corporation Judgment: 7 December 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury - s 26(2), Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 14 July 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decision...

10. Brown v TPL 4 Limited - Motatau 1B5B5 (2017) 158 Taitokerau MB 88 (158 TTK 88) [pdf, 208 KB]

    ...were sold. The question is whether this was an assignment prohibited by the lease, or is otherwise an alienation requiring approval by the Court. [9] When CHH divested its forestry assets in 2006, it sold shares in other lessee companies which formed part of its forestry assets. One of those was NZ Forestry Products Limited, which held a lease over land administered by the Maraeroa C Incorporation and other Maori land trusts. In The Proprietors of Maraeroa C Block v NZ Forest Pro...