Search Results

1. Balich v Standing [2012] NZIACDT 42 (24 August 2012) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...the agreed services, Mr Balich says Mr Standing failed to refund the fees he had been paid. Mr Balich was put to the expense of making a new application after terminating Mr Standing’s engagement. [3] Mr Balich provided evidence to support his claim, and despite the Tribunal requesting that Mr Standing provide his records and deal with the complaint, Mr Standing has not responded. [4] The Tribunal has found the material before it supports the complaint, and it has been upheld. The...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 234 2015 AFT v BCM [pdf, 294 KB]

   ...which were very arguably not made out in this case. I will come back to these. [50] This was not litigation brought repeatedly by the applicant against the respondent or others associated with it, whether plainly or dressed up in alternative forms or forums. It was a serious claim that was brought by the applicant, that he had been dismissed constructively and unjustifiably by his employer from professional employment. The applicant’s claims were that the employer respondent...

3. L v EQC [2022] CEIT-2019-0038 / 0044 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...entirety. [13] The Declination Letters advised Ms L that should she not agree with the decision, that she could supply further information in support of her claims, and that EQC would reconsider its decision on receipt of such information. EQC requested that the amounts already paid out to Ms L for the emergency work claimed, be repaid to it. [14] The matter came to a head again two years later in 2015. In a letter to EQC dated 10 June 2015 Ms L offered to repay the amounts sough...

4. [2014] NZEmpC 169 Goulden v Capital and Coast District Health Board [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...out their respective views of the matter. [3] The facts are: a) On 7 July 2014, the plaintiff’s lawyers contacted the defendant’s lawyers asking whether they were authorised to accept service of the plaintiff’s statement of claim. By email of 7 July 2014, counsel for the defendant confirmed that she was so authorised. b) On the same day a letter was sent by signature-required courier from the plaintiff to the defendant, enclosing by way of service the statemen...

5. Alloa v Ullapool LCRO 159/09 (22 June 2010) [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...to her, he would be required to give evidence, and could be summonsed for that purpose. [5] The second letter [letter B] became the subject of the Applicant’s complaint to the New Zealand Law Society. In this letter the Practitioner informed the Applicant that he could face potential liability as a party for the losses claimed by R. The Practitioner enclosed a draft amended statement of claim showing the Applicant and his company named as defendants and suggested he may wa...

6. TEF v Grimshaw [2025] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 398 KB]

   ...[6] On 1 February 2019 during a charter run the plaintiff and Mr Grimshaw had a conversation in which the plaintiff says he offered to get her the BB run in return for sex. The plaintiff says she was upset and unsure how to respond to his request for sex but decided to go along with it as she could not afford to lose her job or work hours. Mr Grimshaw denies offering to get the plaintiff the BB run in exchange for sex in that conversation, he says rather they discussed how a s...

7. Thompson v Love [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...Apron Flashing [14] Mr Love admits that the apron flashing terminated behind the exterior cladding but says that he did not install the apron flashing and that he followed proper construction practice. Mr Love says that the apron flashing forms part of the roof, which was installed by Carter Holt Harvey and that Carter Holt Harvey followed accepted trade practice at the time. Mr Love states that, at the time of construction, the apron flashings were not required to turn up at...

8. Lewis & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 87 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 13 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6451: NICHOLAS ROMILLY LEWIS AND DIANE HERMA LEWIS AND CHRISTOPHER ELLIOT RICHIE – 18 CAPTAIN EDWARD DANIELL DRIVE, NGAIO ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Nicholas and Diane Lewis and Christopher Ritchi...

9. Marshall & McCardle [2011] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

   1 H[2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 5 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6401: COREY MARSHALL AND KAREN MCCARDLE – 32 MASTERTON ROAD, ROTHESAY BAY ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Corey Marshall and Karen McCardle, as the trustees for the Marshall Family Trust, are the owners...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 10 Snowdon v Radio New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 147 KB]

    ...course of the hearing of the disclosure challenge on 24 September 2009 I raised with counsel what appeared to me to be the underlying disclosure issue between the parties, which was whether the exercise undertaken by the defendant to change the format of the financial material it held, on what was described as the “SunSystem”, into the 5 CD-ROMs, was undertaken for the purpose of concealing from the plaintiff the true position of the defendant’s financial records. The disclos...