Search Results

1. SB Ltd v D Ltd [2021] NZDT 1686 (8 December 2021) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...Ltd in smaller amounts on receipt of a purchase order until a new blanket order was required. In the past D Ltd’s account manager had contacted SB Ltd to let them know when a new blanket order was required. 3. In November 2019 a blanket order form had been signed by SB Ltd for around 5 pallets, which, based on usual usage, was expected to last until around December 2020 – in fact it lasted until March 2021 when the last of the jars was supplied to SB Ltd. At that time, D Ltd did n...

2. [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...

3. T Ltd v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 93 (2 September 2022) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...compressor, charger and battery kit (the kit) online through Q Ltd for $1079.00. 2. Q Ltd responded to the online order that the product was not available instore and would therefore have to be ordered from the supplier. 3. On 22 July Q Ltd informed T Ltd that the kit was no longer available and refunded T Ltd his payment. 4. T Ltd is claiming $2,000.00 for the cost of purchasing the kit as to acquire the kit the individual components of the kit now have to be purchased separa...

4. SK v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 196 (12 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...Ltd has demonstrated they had the authority of the lessee of the land to tow vehicles from its site, his claim for a refund and associated costs does not succeed. Referee Perfect Date: 12 May 2023 Page 2 of 2 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. Montgomery [2010] NZWHT Auckland 32 [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached information. The letter from Nigel Montgomery dated 20 October 2010. The assessor’s report dated 26 July 2010. The letter from Scott Murray of the Department of Building and Housing to the claimants dated 28 September 2010 ad...

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...