Search Results

1. D Ltd v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 228 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...no evidence. NY for R Ltd said they had requested [authorities]’s representative to attend the second hearing as a witness, but [authorities] declined to appear. Nevertheless, given the issues raised by R Ltd there would have been other written forms of evidence, such as independent testing, to support its claims, yet nothing was presented by R Ltd. D Ltd say that their work was done properly and the neighbour was causing problems for the site. 5. In the absence of any evidence...

2. EU v UX [2023] NZDT 313 (23 June 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...a total of $14,950.00 to have the work completed by another supplier, whereas the unpaid balance of the contract price was only $8,387.00. The amount required to put the consumer into the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed is therefore $6,563.00. This exceeds the amount claimed, and no more than the $4,990.00 notified to the supplier can be awarded without adjourning to give further notice. For these reasons, I find that the supplier must pay $4,990.00 to the...

3. Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Lump Sum Compensation) [2022] NZACC 227 [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...relevant decision had been revoked. There is no record of Mr Savage applying to review the 14 November 1998 decision. [6] In 2014, an application for a further lump sum payment was made under the 1982 Act. [7] On 3 February 2014, Mr Savage requested further lump sum compensation under sections 78 and 79 of the 1982 Act. This was on the basis that he had received new medical evidence that the 1988 lump sum payment was wholly inadequate. [8] The new medical evidence that Mr Sava...

4. NN v OD v Z Ltd [2024] NZDT 797 (27 November 2024) [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay to NN and OD jointly the sum of $5,232.36 on or before 18 December 2024. Reasons: 1. In January 2024, NN and OD (“the applicants”) booked a rental car using [an online booking platform]. The car was booked with Z Ltd. 2. The applicants picked up the car on 15 January 2024 in [Location 1] from Z Ltd and completed the rental agreement. 3. On 16 January 2024, the applicants had left the car parked in the [Location...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 129 Patel v Pegasus Stations Ltd [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...dismissal. In brief, the two matters were: a) Forged signature On 8 June 2010, Mr Patel complained in a letter to Mobil management that on 8 April 2010 a co-worker (Aman) had forged his signature on a company document (a wages change advice form) without his permission. b) Health and safety issue On 1 June 2010, Mr Patel complained that on 29 May 2010 his manager (Riaz Ali) failed to give him permission to see a doctor or go home when he was feeling unwell at work. [6...

6. Hide v Official Assignee (Confidentiality Claim) [2019] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...appointment dated 14 April 2014 issued by the Official Assignee to Mr Dennis Parsons, Chartered Accountant, authorising him to conduct the s 165 examinations. [3.3] The relevant parts of the s 165 examination transcripts which contain personal information about Mr Hide. [4] In compliance with that direction Mr LGA Currie on 29 March 2018 swore a supplementary affidavit of documents. Mr Currie is employed by the New Zealand Insolvency and Trustee Service (a business unit of the Minis...

7. [2011] NZEmpC 48 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...(2009) 7 NZELR 1. 4 Waikato District Health Board v Clear [2010] NZCA 305. conditions. The Employment Court also found that Ms Clear‟s dismissal was unjustifiable. [5] During the three-year period between 2000 and 2003, Ms Clear made four formal written complaints to her employer about Ms Parata‟s conduct. The Court of Appeal described the first three complaints in these terms: [9] The first complaint [October 2000] focused on the stress Ms Clear said had been caused...

8. SX v SD Ltd [2022] NZDT 208 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...supplier fails to do so, one of the options available to the consumer is to cancel the contract. In the case of goods, the consumer can obtain a refund of what they have paid; in the case of services, cancellation stops the obligation for further performance but does not necessarily require a full refund of payments made up to that point. 9. SD Ltd provided information about the materials used in the contraction of its cabins. It disputes that there was a chemical odour and says t...

9. Liu & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34. 4 hearing the claimants withdrew their claim against these respondents and they are therefore removed. The agent, Kim Robinson, gave evidence at the hearing after being summoned at the request of the Council. [6] The sixth respondent, PBS Distributors Limited (PBS), supplied the Ventclad cladding system to MHD. PBS complied with orders for discovery but took no other steps and did not appear at the hearing. PBS went i...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 129 Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Ford [pdf, 64 KB]

    ...COUCH [1] This case raises three interrelated issues. The first is how the Court can conduct a de novo hearing of a costs determination made by the Employment Relations Authority. The second is the extent to which the Court should call for information when a defendant fails to take any steps in the proceeding. The third issue is the manner and extent to which a party’s financial circumstances should be taken into account in making an award of costs. [2] Ms Ford was employe...