Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 144 NZ Meat Workers & Related Trades Union Inc v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...amended statement of claim filed on 24 June 2015 pleaded three variations of an unlawful lockout cause of action. First, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendant’s refusal to engage union members for employment, other than on the defendant’s form of individual employment agreement, constituted an unlawful lockout. The second cause of action was an alternatively particularised allegation of unlawful lockout. The third cause of action was a second alternative particularisation...

2. Form 27 - Criminal legal aid - Tax invoice - schedule J [pdf, 367 KB]

   Templates V10 – July 2016 page 1 07/16 form 27 Legal aid file no. Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedule J Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Name of aided person Name of lead provider Name of law firm Provider number Firm number Court type High Court Court of Appeal Parole Board Court location Details of clai...

3. TS v BE [2024] NZDT 667 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...this kind of wall chosen rather than some other wall?” If the real reason the particular wall or kind of wall was chosen was to bound land, it qualifies as a fence. If the real reason it was chosen was because it was necessary or appropriate to perform another function, such as retaining land, then it is not a “fence”. 6. After an adjournment to seek legal advice, TS submitted an opinion from her solicitor that the concrete block wall is not a “fence”. I concur. As the solicito...

4. Ward v Maccol Developments Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...a tortfeasor and therefore there is no liability to make a contribution to other parties. However, if he is found to be liable (which is denied), he seeks a full contribution from the Council as a tortfeasor under section 17(1)(c) of the Law Reform Act 1936 on the ground that he was obliged to cut ventilation slots in the deck at the specific instruction of Mr Merton. CLAIM NO.00823 – WARD DETERMINATION.doc 14 THE DEFENCE FOR THE THIRD RESPONDENT, THE COUNCIL [48] The Co...

5. ET v F Ltd & EN [2024] NZDT 562 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...vicariously liable? 13. An employer will be liable for the act of an employee if there is sufficient connection between the employee’s act and his employment such that it would be fair to hold the employer liable for that act. Vicarious liability is a form of no fault or strict liability; the employer may still be liable, even where it has committed no wrongdoing albeit this will ultimately depend on the facts of each case. 14. EN had use of F Ltd’s company van for his work. I a...

6. DB & NB v R Ltd & D Ltd [2024] NZDT 439 (14 May 2024) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...contract for carriage evidenced by their airline tickets, but that the airlines’ baggage rules for extra baggage are not part of this contract. 5. In the alternative, they argue that the contract relating to the baggage was amended, supplemented or formed on 28 February 2023 during an in-person visit to the airport. As a result, they are claiming for: • The difference between $NZD150 and $USD200 for five pieces of baggage CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 6 • The excess...

7. KI & QI v TX [2021] NZDT 1688 (10 December 2021) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...have jurisdiction to hear the claim. 29. For these reasons, I find that the claim is proved and TX is to pay KI & QI $200.00. Referee: K Johnson Date: 10 December 2021 Page 4 of 4 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 at the time. If you wish to apply for a re...

8. E Ltd v KC [2024] NZDT 443 (27 May 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...front bumper of the truck. The truck was repaired at a cost of $12,747.36 which E Ltd and J Ltd now claim from KC. 4. KC declines liability on the basis that the truck should not have been travelling on the road, and on the basis that J Ltd had informed him in July 2023 that it would not pursue any costs against him. 5. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did KC cause the damage by failing to take reasonable care? b. If so, was there any contribution to the collision or the d...

9. OIA-121121.pdf [pdf, 3.5 MB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 ContactUs@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 9 June 2025 Ref: OIA 121121 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: Climate Change (Restriction on Civil Proceedings) Bill Thank you for your email of 3 April 2025 requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), information regarding the Smith v Fonterra litigation and the Climate Change (Restriction on Civil Pro...

10. UJ v OO LCRO 143 / 2012 (9 April 2013) [pdf, 107 KB]

    ...representative from Ms UK’s solicitors. It is also unfortunate that the Law Firm A file in relation to this matter is unavailable, having not been able to retrieve it from their previous offices. [40] However, it appears that Mr OO, when he signed the form had authority to do so on behalf of Ms UK. It may be possible to argue that at that point, when he was signing the document, Mr OO was acting on behalf of both Ms UK and Mr UJ. However, this argument faces some obstacles....