Search Results

1. USM v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 291 (27 September 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...USM’s vehicle outside unit 3, the unit next to the gym. There are two ‘no parking’ signs on the windows, and a sign which carries the letters PO Ltd. Although the photographs do not show any details of the signs clearly, they convey enough information for me to find that USM parked in PO Ltd’s carpark. Did USM breach the terms of a contract or commit the tort of trespass? Was there a contract? 10. Q Ltd relies on the law of contract. It says the ‘no parking’ sign cons...

2. HX & H Ltd v J Ltd [2025] NZDT 75 (14 February 2025) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...from $NZ11,213.00 to $NZ15,762.00. (e) A letter was provided from Mr T, who is known by HX, wrote that he inspected the trailer and found that the sub-frame was constructed out of steel, but the deck/tub and mudguards were all manufactured from formed aluminium. He considered that “it would appear that the trailer was in good sound workable/usable condition prior to the impact damage”. 7. HX considered the price to replace the trailer with a steel one would be $10,000.00. Ste...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 200 Jonas v Menefy Trucking Ltd [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...little damage but the galvanised post had to be replaced. That was the incident resulting in Mr Jonas’ dismissal. [10] Prior to the incident Mr Jonas appears to have had concerns about congestion in Pacific’s yard. The Court was not informed about the type of truck he drove while working for Monex but in evidence, which was unchallenged, Mr Jonas said that when he was making the deliveries for Menefy, he became concerned because, “the site was very tight for me to g...

4. [2009] NZEmpC WC 3/09 Mana Coach Service Ltd V The Tramways Union [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...was not in all respects a test case but, rather, one in which some, but not all, of the legal principles were well established. The case had some factual complexity illustrated by the length of time required for the hearing. [3] The plaintiff claims that the union contributed unnecessarily to increased costs in the document disclosure exercises before the hearing. For the defendant, it was submitted that the company contributed unnecessarily to increased costs by opposing the admi...

5. [2008] NZEmpC AC 49/08 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...conflict was their different perceptions of who was responsible for individual patients. Ms Clear believed that patients were “hers.” From Mrs Parata’s point of view, generally the patients were cared for by a team of midwives unless one requested a particular midwife to care for her. This led to mutual antagonism. [25] Midwives who had worked at the Tokoroa Maternity Ward from the 1970s onwards gave their views about this relationship and the working environment. Whi...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 130 Packwood v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 494 KB]

   ...In the first part of her document, Ms Packwood says that false evidence was given to the Authority by two members of ANZ, and that what she described as new evidence was also presented at that hearing. She also says that evidence which she had requested from ANZ, which she says would have absolved her, was never given (because that point was not reached). [31] Then, responding to the strike out grounds raised by ANZ, she referred to the events that occurred on the second day of th...

7. UI & II v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 34 (31 January 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...‘reasonable care and skill’ only requires that suppliers apply reasonable judgement, which in the case of diagnostic services, requires that they go with the probabilities, applying the most likely fixes first. 11. No independent evidence, in the form of other expert opinion for example, was provided by UI and II to show that D Ltd’s recommendation to replace the seals on the 13-year old car was unreasonable in the circumstances. Further, D Ltd state that the leak appears to have...

8. OB v CM [2024] NZDT 121 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...“ahs” in clause 8 has been changed to “has”. The date for payment has been changed to 16th May 2024. In all other respects the wording of the order remains the same. Referee: G R Meyer Date: 26th April 2024 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 fo...

9. Q Ltd v UL [2024] NZDT 129 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...lease terms. The amount due is higher than the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, however Q Ltd reduce their claim to stay within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 4. The matter was adjourned after the first hearing for the parties to obtain further information. When the hearing resumed, I was unable to contact UL. Calls went straight to voicemail. There were no further submissions from UL, and she had not been in contact with the Tribunal. UL had been informed of the date of the hearing. I w...

10. UM v BD [2024] NZDT 699 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

    ...after they declined to provide a replacement vehicle. I therefore find UM is entitled to a refund of 19 days hireage at $68.09 per day, which equates to $1293.71. Referee: DTR Edwards Date: 15 November 2024 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 reh...