Search Results

1. Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2016] NZHRRT 36 [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...BY DEFENDANT1 BACKGROUND [1] In its decision in Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZHRRT 31 given on 29 September 2016 the Tribunal found the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) had discharged its burden of proving the information withheld from Dr Lohr fell within the exceptions in ss 27(1)(c) and 29(1)(a) of the Privacy Act 1993. As information 1 [This decision is to be cited as: Lohr v Accident Comp...

2. QD v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 551 (19 September 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...care and skill. QD’s submission was based on media reports of an interim report of the Transport Accident Investigation Commission. L Ltd says it does not accept some of the statements in the report and that that there is new (undisclosed) information that is likely to affect some of TAIC’s preliminary findings. While the evidence, such as it is, points to failings on L Ltd’s part, it is not necessary to make any findings on the issue. 21. Of more significance is whether th...

3. [2007] NZEmpC AC 33/07 Schneller v Ranworth Healthcare Ltd [pdf, 51 KB]

   ...there were significant contradictions between the evidence given to the hearings by Karen Schneller, and her written statement made to Ranworth after its receipt of Alison Schneller’s personal grievance. The Authority concluded that it was the former (sworn evidence) that was unreliable and that the latter (a statement made for the purposes of later litigation) was accurate. [5] Although I accept, as did the Authority, that Karen Schneller was an unreliable witness, I have not...

4. Matchitt v Whangara B20 Incorporation - Whangara B20 (2006) 168 Gisborne MB 126 (168 GIS 126) [pdf, 486 KB]

   ...Finally, the evidence for the committee was that the house was uninhabitable, derelict and unsafe for occupancy so they moved to stop habitation on 18 March 2005. It was Dr Te Momo's evidence that the state of the homestead was the ground for requesting that the Matchitts vacate the property on 23 March 2005. The Court noted the committee did not have before it a professional repOlt when they concluded that the house was uninhabitable. A further letter to vacate was issued on 6 May 2...

5. Langston v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims process) [2024] NZACC 93 (30 May 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...a decision has been made can there be a right of review and if no right of review exists then s133(5) has no application. ... The substance [of the communication in question] has to be analysed.” … [47] … merely administrative issues and requests, do not amount to a ‘decision’ within the meaning of s.6 of the legislation. Whether a ‘decision’ has been made needs to be determined in the factual context and circumstances. [25] In Scoullar,4 Beattie DCJ stated: [16] I...

6. LCRO 47/2021 BQ v ZG (16 December 2024) [pdf, 665 KB]

   ...transfer to “our trust account” of the funds Firm A held in trust. Firm A requested from Ms ND “… your firm’s undertaking that you will retain the sale proceeds … undisbursed, until resolving of division of relationship property between [the former husband] and [the respondent]”. [13] The exchange is puzzling. Barristers do not operate trust accounts. Ms ND may not have understood this. [14] Ms ND engaged with Firm A regarding the form of undertaking required. On...

7. Taniora v Crown - Pukemakoiti 2 and 4 (2018) 390 Aotea MB 268 (390 AOT 268) [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...Wi, Thomas Tuwhangai, Moera Hughes, Mary Crown and Morgan Rata.3 Procedural history [6] Ms Taniora filed the application for enforcement of obligations of the trust on 20 June 2017, on behalf of the Taniora Maru Whānau Trust. The applicant requested the hearing be held in Hamilton as she resides there, which was opposed by the trustees. I issued directions on 29 August 2017 allowing for the case to be heard in Hamilton for the purpose of taking the applicant’s evidence, and f...

8. ED v CC [2022] NZDT 228 (25 November 2022) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 228 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT CC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. CC emailed ED regarding the purchase of quail eggs and quails. 2. ED replied sending some information and proposing some dates to send a breeding group of quails, eggs and feed. 3. CC responded saying that she would love to proceed and asking if she could get the birds a little later. She also asked ED for his recommendation abo...

9. Carey Clan Trust v Still [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...not CGAF. 20. CGAF say that the inspection was a visual inspection (not invasive) as was the invariable practice for final inspections. 21. CGAF drew attention to the time period between the issuing of the building consent in June 1999 and the request by the Council for a final inspection in March 2007. They said that in making the request the Council had an obligation to specify the ambit and extent of the final inspection. They were clearly on notice as they asked that particula...

10. [2025] NZLVT 019 – Flath v Minister for Land Information (9 May 2025) [pdf, 505 KB]

    ...discretion the claimant should bear their own costs or a proportion of them and they should pay the costs of the respondent or a proportion of them. In this regard special reasons and reasonableness are relevant factors. The suggestion that s 90(2) forms a mandatory requirement that there can be no payment to the claimant and must be the payment of all the reasonable costs of the respondent is not supported by any other authority. Gavigan was clear that even where the grounds are...