Search Results

1. Steele v Board of Trustees of Salisbury School [2012] NZHRRT 20 [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...person Mr DM O’Neill for Defendant DATE OF HEARING: 16 December 2011 and 23 January 2012 DATE OF DECISION: 7 September 2012 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL Introduction [1] The case for Mr Steele is that when on 19 November 2010 he made a request under information privacy principle 6 for access to personal information about him held by the Board of Trustees of Salisbury School, the Board failed to make a decision on that request within the time limit fixed by s 40(1) of the Pr...

2. Shihaku v Mizoguchi [2017] NZIACDT 7 (19 June 2017) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...some tension between them. The principles are: [5.1] The Tribunal may regulate its procedures as it thinks fit. [5.2] Matters or complaints must be heard on the papers. [5.3] Despite the requirement to hear matters on the papers, the Tribunal may request further information from any person or request that any person appear before the Tribunal to make a statement or an explanation. [6] In some cases, the power to require persons to attend before the Tribunal has been necessary bec...

3. SW on behalf of COMPANY 1 v RG, OL and HJ LCRO 130/2014 (3 November 2016) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...that regrettable delay. 2 Background [3] The director of Company 1, Mr VL, instructed Law Firm 1 to act on the purchase of a commercial fishing vessel. Approximately two months later the boat was stolen, apparently by another party claiming ownership of the vessel. [4] Mr RG took steps in the District Court to remedy the situation and an agreement was reached about ownership. However Maritime New Zealand indicated that a High Court order was needed to amend the Registe...

4. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...Kent and [the RN] have differing recollections of whether a cross- checking procedure occurred. 3. Dr Kent stated that he stopped and took some time to consider what to do, before talking to Mrs Ashworth about it. Dr Kent told HDC that he then informed Mrs Ashworth of the options available to her, and believed he obtained her consent to proceed with the KAMRA inlay in her left eye. Dr Kent then inserted the KAMRA inlay into her left eye. [8] The Commissioner found Dr Kent breached the...

5. Larnark v Kirby LCRO 44 / 2010 (1 October 2010) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...Proceedings were issued by the Practitioner on behalf of the Applicants on 1 May 2008. Subsequently, it was decided that an amended Statement of Claim was required and this was prepared and filed on 10 November 2008. In addition, the Practitioner formed the view at a later date, that the proceedings should be transferred to the High 2 Court due to the fact that the Applicants‟ claim included matters relating to the Bill of Rights and breaches of the rules of natural justice....

6. Heath v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 193 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000064 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 20 BETWEEN GLEN JOSEPH HEATH AND MICHELLE SUZETTE HEATH Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL (formerly known as NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL) First Respondent AND LYNETTE GAY HART (NEE BOLTE) Second Respondent AND DAVID GRAHAM DELAMARE (Removed) Third Respondent AND THORNE DWYER STRUCTURES LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND ROBERT LESLEY REID Fifth Respondent AND JULIAN MATTHEW WOUL

7. ADC v ZWY [2009] NZDT 199 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...garments as an outworker for ADC’s clothing manufacturing and retail business. On 5 June 2009, ADC collected ZWY’s work from her home and paid ZWY’s invoice for the work totalling $178.00. On 9 June 2009, ADC left a phone message for ZWY informing her that she was stopping the payment because the garments she had sewn were not of the required standard and that she would no longer be using ZWY for any further work. [2] ZWY is now claiming payment of her invoice and ADC is...

8. OIA-98286.pdf [pdf, 135 KB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 contactus@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 2 September 2022 Our ref: OIA 98286 Tēnā koe Official Information Act 1982 request: Advice provided to Tenancy Tribunal Adjudicators Thank you for your email of 11 August 2022, requesting information on any advice provided to Tenancy Tribunal (the Tribunal) adjudicators with respect to handling meth related claims...

9. [2022] NZREADT 22 — QQ v REAA (CAC 1902) & NQ (25 October 2022) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...not on any representation made by the vendor or by any person on the vendor’s behalf. The purchaser will raise no objection to, or requisition in respect of, the Property, its condition or any matters affecting the Property. [12] Disclosure forms notifying defects in the property were signed by prospective purchasers before bidding at the auction. Certain defects were disclosed. The bidders acknowledged having been: …told that there may be a leak in the upstairs bathroom fr...

10. MX & MY v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 622 (17 November 2023) [pdf, 103 KB]

    ...what is the remedy? Did the company fail to exercise reasonable care and skill and/or fail to provide an outcome that was reasonably fit for purpose? 4. Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides that services must be performed with reasonable care and skill. Broadly “reasonable” means the standard of care and skill a reasonable consumer would expect of a reasonable service provider. The guarantee under section 29 of the CGA requires that services and any pro...