Search Results

1. [2022] NZEmpC 128 Straayer v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...that of legal professional privilege. This term encapsulates solicitor client privilege, which is described in s 54 of the Evidence Act 2006 (the EA). It relevantly states: 54 Privilege for communications with legal advisers (1) A person who requests or obtains professional legal services from 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...

2. LG v OE [2023] NZDT 48 (30 January 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...was not of acceptable quality. I say that because LG was told that the parts had all been replaced with brand new parts, and that OE would provide a full cover 3-month warranty for everything. Those things tend to suggest that the spa pool would perform at a higher level than a second-hand spa pool which had not been reconditioned, which would include the absence of a persistent leak. If not, was it remedied within a reasonable time? 12. Section 18 of the CGA states that where goods...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 149 Radius Residential Care Ltd v McLeay [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...they were designed for recording the medical progress of patients in hospitals or care centres rather than communications between RCS and one of the company’s rest home clients. It is not clear from the evidence why the defendant had used the forms for writing up her notes regarding Mr Hamilton’s complaint. What was clear, however, from Ms Bedford’s evidence was that the plaintiff wrongly believed that the notes had not been made by the defendant contemporaneously with the e...

4. IT & NH v UN Ltd [2022] NZDT 163 (25 October 2022) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...meet. He claimed there were other emails about this which had not been produced in evidence. However I note two things in relation to this. IT has had plenty of time since filing the claim and since the first hearing in July to produce any such information in evidence if he had it, and he has not done so. Secondly, Mr O had produced a number of emails in evidence, and he said that is all there were. These emails did not over-promise anything as alleged. The most that Mr O said was tha...

5. NB v CF & MF [2024] NZDT 515 (13 August 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...unconsented works on the property. She obtained a pre- purchase builders report from T of D Joiners & Builders. Under the heading “waste water system”, T wrote: “A septic tank located adjacent to the dwelling has been constructed of in-situ formed concrete and is of a size capable to deal with the size of dwelling and the amount of kitchen and bathroom facilities. This tank appears to be vented correctly. An adjacent inspection cover reveals another settling tank or soak pit...

6. [2024] NZEmpC 6 C3 Ltd v O’Brien [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...integrity testing.6 C3 Ltd has accepted that, under the Standard, it is considered best practice that, where there are issues with a specimen’s integrity that may indicate tampering (such as the use of fake urine or other types of adulteration), to request a second sample from the employee and to send both samples to the laboratory to be analysed. (g) However, C3 Ltd elected not to include the full Standard into its D & A Policy. The D & A Policy does not require a...

7. Dowling v Jacobsen Creative Surfaces Ltd [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...evidence and expertise of the WHRS assessor. 2.4 The applications by the first and second respondents for costs do not have equal merit. Mr Swan appeared for Mapei at conferences and filed an application for strike out. This was in the form of a one page letter with no evidence or affidavits provided in support. Mapei did not file a response to the claim and therefore did not call witnesses. At the hearing Mr Swan conducted limited cross-examination of some witnesses. The...

8. Ratima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2012) 15 Takitimu MB 57 (15 TKT 57) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...the trust to significant expenditure through a process that was not transparent. [11] Mr Ratima in his affidavit raises three further issues. First he says that the trustees continued to be obstructive in providing information on the trust as requested by his solicitors. Second he says that a particular request concerns fees paid to trustees where they continue to fail to provide sufficient detail to him and his solicitor. Third he says that one of the existing trustees Yvonne...

9. LCRO 130/2018 UH v OB (12 February 2020) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...failed to treat Mr UH with respect and courtesy. [15] Mr TD’s report is careful and thorough and it is appropriate to include here extracts from this report:7 53. The Tribunal found that the Complainant’s explanation for incomplete passport forms being filed, shifted between the written accounts and his oral evidence, but were also “inherently implausible”. In effect, the Complainant alleged that the [NA] complainants had broken into his office to obtain the incomplete forms...

10. LCRO 195/2016 AJR v BKT (29 October 2018) [pdf, 159 KB]

    ...including associates, friends and his wife. [18] Mr BKT attempted to recover the information he had inappropriately disclosed and sought assurances from the lawyers concerned. Most of the lawyers involved responded positively although Mr BKT’s request was met with resistance from some quarters. [19] Mr AJR says he had warned Mr BKT this could happen. With his longstanding concerns vindicated, and personal information apparently still at large, Mr AJR made a complaint to the...