Search Results

1. [2025] NZREADT 22 - ZD & NK v Liu & Zareian (18 June 2025) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...were identified as Mr Zareian and Ms Zareian. Under “Other Disclosures”, the vendors answered “no” to the question whether there was any completed work which might have required a consent.1 At the time of listing, the vendors did not inform the Zareians of the unconsented building work. [9] The property was marketed from about 17 August 2021 by the Zareians. 1 Agency agreement (4 August 2021) at [21.2]; BoD at 153. 3 [10] The Zareians were subsequently inform...

2. [2020] NZEmpC 37 Kang v Lee [pdf, 353 KB]

   ...appear ready for the Authority to consider. Against that background, Mr Lee has belatedly sought an adjournment of the meeting, claiming that he has an urgent need to travel to South Korea. The explanation offered to the Authority to support this request was that he has business interests in New Zealand that are in some way funded by the Government of South Korea and it is necessary for him to attend, in person, in 1 See Employment...

3. EF v G Ltd NZDT [2021] 1530 (24 February 2021) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...case the claim and counterclaim are essentially two halves of the same coin. The result must therefore be that if the counterclaim fails, the claim must succeed. 10. The rest of this decision addresses the substance of the counterclaim. The information provided by EF in his written claim and in the initial hearing is also taken into account in that context. 11. Following the second hearing on the counterclaim the issues to be addressed are now as follows: a) Was a debt due and...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 71 Marx v Southern Cross Campus Board of Trustees [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...my professional duties is yet another attempt to bully and discredit me. As mentioned in my earlier email this morning I have every intention of defending myself as I consider your actions extremely prejudicial. [22] The email concluded with a request for “forms I need to make a formal complain[t] on how I have been treated”. [23] A further email followed on 8 February 2013 in which Mrs Marx stated that: We consider the current ‘suspension of my duties’ by the pri...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 36 Kang v Saena Company Ltd [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...freezing orders and ancillary orders against it. Mr Hwang and Ms Weon are shareholders in Saena. Freezing orders and ancillary orders are sought against them because they may control the business and/or have received any proceeds of sale. Request for urgency [7] The application was filed on 1 March 2022. Urgency was granted and the application was considered at a hearing with counsel, Mr Seungmin Kang, on 3 March 2022. 1 Kang v Saena Company Ltd [2021] NZERA 196 (Me...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 8 Service v YMCA Christchurch [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...view of the facts of the case and asking him to provide a full affidavit in answer to specific questions. He provided an affidavit on 10 December but has repeatedly refused any further response to the YMCA. [49] The lengthy email to Mr Tindall requesting an affidavit was actually written by Mr Zwart. Mr Zwart summarised the relevant events that had occurred back in January/February/March 2008 and then requested Mr Tindall’s response to a number of issues. One of those issues wa...

7. GJG ltd v SQS Ltd [2018] NZDT 1072 (26 April 2018) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...entitled to a refund? What was agreed between the parties? [5] The relevant law is the law of contract, the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). A contract need not be in writing; an agreement can be formed verbally or inferred from the parties’ conduct. [6] GJG argued that this was a case of buyer’s remorse, and that Mrs QS had been informed about the payments that would be taken under the twelve-month contract. Howev...

8. NC v MD [2021] NZDT 1348 (12 March 2021) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...saying he understood and agreed only to trimming on her property. She says “it could possibly have been a surprise to her” that the loquat tree was removed by her contractors. 7. I find, on the balance of probabilities and from the limited information available, that MD, at the least, gave inadequate instructions and supervision to her contractors and that this amounts to negligence. She is therefore liable in negligence for the reasonable costs of putting NC back into the posit...

9. CO Ltd v GM Ltd [2019] NZDT 1478 (26 July 2019) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...accordance with the Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit. Conclusion 11. For these reasons GM Ltd is to pay CO Ltd the sum of $15,000.00 by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 26 July 2019 Page 3 of 3 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish...

10. UM v QO [2022] NZDT 252 (12 December 2022) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...dismissed. Reasons: 1. UM purchased a vehicle from DO via her son QO after seeing it advertised on U. 2. Prior to this, UM organised for it to be checked over by B and QO assisted with this taking place. 3. After the inspection, QO informed UM the price was reduced from $10,000 to $9,000 and that he would replace two tyres. 4. The agreement was made and included for the vehicle to be delivered to UM. 5. UM experienced issues with the engine and discovered rust and other...