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. Paul v Doorbar - Pukepapa 3 (2020) 414 Aotea MB 16 (414 AOT 16) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...together with David Doorbar and Alice Katene Doorbar, are now the trustees of the marae reservation. Robert Paul then resigned on 28 February 2019. Procedural history [8] The application was first heard on 20 June 2017.6 While I had received a request for an adjournment, as the trustees and the committee members of OHMC could not attend, the hearing proceeded with Ms Paul as a further fixture would not take place until later in the year. Ms Paul raised concerns about obtaining...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 169 Smiths City (Southern) Ltd (in receivership) v Claxton [pdf, 518 KB]

   ...several years employed by Smiths City (Southern) Ltd (in receivership). They both held senior positions in the company’s Northwood store where they ran the flooring department, and the floor installation staff, respectively. [2] Smiths City claimed that, while Mr Claxton and Mr Milne were employed by it, both of them were involved in establishing and operating competing businesses without permission from the company and to its detriment. [3] Mr Claxton and Mr Milne were alleg...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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....

8. 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...

9. 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...

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...