Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 148 Bowen v Bank of NZ [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...and relevant to protected disclosures she has made and to the proceedings that she has pending in the Human Rights Review Tribunal and in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). [4] The BNZ has identified the proceedings currently filed in the Court and the Authority as: (a) A statement of problem filed in the Authority in August 2017 alleging unjustified disadvantage in relation to a review of a restructure by a named senior BNZ executive. Ms Bowen claims that t...

2. [2021] NZEnvC 128 Boyd v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...Topic 16 – Rezoning Appeals Group 1 – Upper Clutha _______________________________________________________________ 2 A: Any s274 party who intends to call evidence and/or make submissions on the matters raised in their s274 notice must file and serve that evidence (in affidavit form) and any submissions within 15 working days of the date of this decision. B: The appellants and QLDC must file and serve any affidavit(s) in reply and submissions within 25 working days of...

3. Boyd v Legacy Church and Legacy Housing (Strike-Out) [2023] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...case management conference that day, directions were made requiring Ms Boyd to file her written statement of evidence and the bundle of documents on which she relies by 12 March 2021. At the teleconference it was Ms Boyd who proposed this date for filing her evidence. [4] Ms Boyd did not file her evidence as directed, nor did she seek further time to do so. [5] On 24 June 2021 the Tribunal emailed Ms Boyd’s counsel Mr Tennet, asking him to advise whether she still wished to...

4. OX v QT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1671 (16 August 2021) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1671 APPLICANT OX RESPONDENT QT Ltd C/- DQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. OX is not liable to pay $288.75 or any further sum to QT Ltd. 2. OX’s claim for the filing fee is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 24 February 2021 OX instructed his son, who was driving his vehicle, to park in a private car park at [the parking building]. On 31 March he received a reminder from QT that he had not paid a bre...

5. EN & ND v QI & MI [2023] NZDT 272 (21 July 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...toilet was blocked and did not work properly. They called a plumber who fixed the problem. Relying on clause 7.3(1) of the sale and purchase agreement the purchasers asked the vendors to pay for the work done. The vendors did not pay. EN and ND filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim for a breach of clause 7.3(1) of the ADLS Agreement for the sale and purchase of a residential property, because the toilet was allegedly not in working order, for the repair costs...

6. Te Huia v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 77 (7 May 2025) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Judgment on the papers. Submissions: D Miller for the Appellant S Arnold for the Respondent Date of Judgment: 7 May 2025 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Late filing of an appeal to the District Court – s 151, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] The appeal in the above matter was lodged by Mr Te Huia on 21 April 2025. The appeal is from the decision of a Reviewer dated 10 Decem...

7. [2007] NZEmpC AK 40/07 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...commence a challenge by way of a de novo hearing against a determination of the Employment Relations Authority at Hamilton on 13 February 2007. Through oversight on behalf of both the plaintiff and her counsel, Mr Hammond, the period of time for filing a challenge against the determination was allowed to expire. The Court has a discretion to grant leave conferred by s219 of the Employment Relations Act 2000. In anticipation of leave being granted, the plaintiff has filed with the...

8. Leaders Real Estate (1987) Limited v CAC20008 & Anor [2015] NZREADT 41 [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...with High Court Rules 7. At paragraphs 2.3 and 2.4 of his memorandum, counsel for the first respondent draws an analogy with the provisions of rule 20.4 of the High Court Rules. He notes that the rule provides for a 20 working day time limit for filing an appeal in the High Court and provides the Court with a power to extend the time for filing an appeal. He notes, by way of contrast, that the Act [the Real Estate Agents Act 2008] contains no such provision or power for appeals to the...

9. FP v UW LCRO 225 / 2010 (11 October 2011) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...strategy was to formulate the claim which would then be put to ABW, in the hope that it would be sufficient to cause ABW to enter into negotiations. [11] Following delivery of the documents which FP had in his possession, and after reviewing the files of the solicitor who acted for the FPs when the business was purchased, it became clear to UW and UV, that the claim was not as straight forward as had been anticipated during the telephone conversation on 12 September. [12] UV unde...

10. LCRO 205/2016 EK v IQ (15 October 2018) [pdf, 169 KB]

    ...late August 2015. [18] On 25 January 2016, Mr IQ emailed Mr EK advising that as he had not heard further from Mr EK, he would be filing an application in the Disputes Tribunal. [19] Mr EK responded the next day expressing the view that any claim filed would be “erroneous” but that he was looking forward to having the matter put before the Tribunal. [20] Mr IQ filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. Those proceedings have been stayed, pending resolution of Mr EK’s complaint....