Search Results

1. KQ & QQ v R Ltd [2025] NZDT 183 (6 June 2025) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...delivery the applicants noticed the table and chairs were all branded with the manufacturer’s logo and name ‘[model name]’. The applicants claim this branding was not on the dining table and chairs they viewed in the showroom nor were they informed by the respondent this branding would be on the products they bought. 2. The applicants now claim in the Tribunal for a return of the furniture and a full refund of the purchase price of $2,261. The issues for the Tribunal to deter...

2. LCRO 57/2018 G RC and D RC v YS (30 April 2019) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...available”. [23] The Committee concluded that Mr YS “acted appropriately in the termination of the retainer” having received the report from Dr EF, who had been appointed by the Family Court, to assess Mrs RC’s mental capacity. (2) Request for Mrs RC’s files, records (a) Mr G, as attorney [24] The Committee accepted that “it was arguable” that Mr YS “was entitled to refuse to provide” Mrs RC’s files to Mr G when Mr G’s conduct, as Mrs RC’s attorney, wa...

3. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...the time. The respondent issued four invoices for his work, dated 31 August 2020, 30 September 2020, 30 October 2020 and 27 November 2020. The applicant paid the first invoice. [18] In February 2021, in response to receipt of a statement and request for payment from the firm, the applicant requested that the other three invoices be “put on hold” until his dispute with the Council was resolved, so that the applicant could ascertain what the respondent’s alleged conduct in m...

4. Tane v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2025] NZDC 36 (27 February 2025) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...June 2021, a review application was filed against Wellnz’s decisions. 5 [16] On 22 September 2021, Ms Tane’s then advocate emailed Wellnz, noting that Mr Van Nieuwenhuizen had referred to a L5/S1 facet joint injury. The email formally requested that Wellnz issue a cover decision in regard to that diagnosis. In the meantime, the review application for the earlier decisions stood adjourned. [17] On 27 October 2021, Dr Courtenay Kenny, Occupational Specialist, having conduct...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 258 Du Fall v The Mokoia Intermediate School Board [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...difficulty, conflict and hurt. They were sent at a time when Ms Du Fall was standing for election to the board. [84] A communication was sent out to the school community by the board advising they had written to the Ministry of Education requesting the appointment of an LSM. The concern stated in the communication that gave rise to the request was that Ms Du Fall, her husband and a third party were standing for board positions as parent representatives. The communication wen...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 153 Roy v BOT of Tamaki College [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...circumstances, Mr Roy elected to await the provision to him of a copy of the Board’s report to the NZTC which it was obliged statutorily to make “immediately” following his resignation with effect from 11 October 2010. [33] Although Mr Roy did not request the Board to provide to him its reasons for the actions which he says amounted to his constructive dismissal (pursuant to s 120 of the Act), what he did subsequently was tantamount to doing so. From 30 September 2010 Mr Ro...

7. Moriori Claims Settlement bill [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...with articles 14 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable to ss 20 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act.3 Exclusion of remedy of compensation 9. Clause 24(3) of the Bill excludes damages and other forms of monetary compensation as a remedy for any failure by the Crown to comply with a protocol under the Bill. 10. This clause may be seen to raise the issue of consistency with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights Act, namely the right to bring ci...

8. [2011] NZEmpC 68 Army Surplus Disposals Ltd v Reed [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...produce this book to the Authority. (d) Mr Doyle claimed he could provide further evidence that Mr Reed received the money alleged if he was given time. The Authority Member allowed Mr Doyle 10 days following the investigation to provide this information but he failed to do so. [5] The determination records findings and orders as follows: [7] By operating its business on a cash basis, without documentation, the respondent has put itself in a vulnerable position. In the absence...

9. Jarvie & Ors v Accident Compensation Corporation (Reviewable decision) [2025] NZACC 41 (5 March 2025) [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...dated 19 March 2018 stating that the Corporation’s letter had not addressed any of the claimants’ concerns. Further, none of the claimants had responded to the letter as they were not sure why they had to provide the additional information requested. [8] The Corporation responded on 10 April 2018 advising: Each situation is assessed on the client’s individual circumstances and needs and therefore information is requested from the client in order for ACC to understand both...

10. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 45 KB]

    ...comply with an order for discovery, a notice for further particulars, a notice for interrogatories, or other similar requirement under these rules; or (v) failing, without reasonable justification, to accept an offer of settlement whether in the form of an offer under rule 14.10 or some other offer to settle or dispose of the proceeding; … 24. The claimant states that items (i), (ii) and (iii) above cover the Council’s behaviour in question. 25. The claimant also refer...