Search Results

1. DT & Ors v MU [2025] NZDT 24 (17 January 2025) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accepted. If you wish to reserve a right of appeal you may therefore wish to file an appea...

2. QQ v S Ltd [2025] NZDT 29 (16 April 2025) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...costs and repairs are dismissed. 2. S Ltd is to return to QQ the Speedometer on or before Thursday 8th May 2025. Reasons: 1. This claim and counter claim were scheduled before me on 1 April 2025 via teleconference. 2. The Applicant filed a claim seeking the refund of $300.00 and the return of his Speedometer. 3. The Respondent filed a counter claim seeking $742.96 for the cost of repairing the Applicants Speedometer on the second occasion. Background: 4. In June...

3. [2018] NZEmpC 98 Ovation NZ Ltd v The NZ Meat Workers and Related Trades Union [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...Act. The plaintiffs’ application should accordingly be dismissed. c) The categories of documents sought contain no time limitation. d) The documents sought are irrelevant; reference was made to the fact that the plaintiff had not filed a statement of defence to the defendant’s particulars as contained in its memorandum to the Court of 7 August 2018, which followed the Court’s interlocutory judgment of 10 August 2018.3 e) The evidence from the plaintiffs’ witn...

4. LCRO 24/2020 TN v [Area] Standards Committee [X] (30 November 2020) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...The Committee’s decision records that in the meantime: On 24 August 2018, Judge VH released a copy of the 23 November 2017 letter following an earlier request by [the Committee]. Mr TN did not take the opportunity offered by the Committee to file further submissions after the own motion inquiry resumed, and the decision recording that there had been unsatisfactory conduct on his part was issued on 11 December 2019. The Committee referred to the allegation as “an inherently seri...

5. [2024] NZEnvC 221 Connor [pdf, 330 KB]

   ...The Court exercises its discretion to grant both the application for demolition and the application to construct a new dwelling, subject to the conditions attached at “A”. B: Any appeal against the Court’s decision on conditions is to be filed within 15 working days in the ordinary way. C: The resource consent to demolish the existing building at 22 Crescent Road, and to construct the new buildings is not to commence under s 116(1) of the RMA until such time as the High...

6. Pue – Te Ika a Maui, Te Ika a Ngahue (Te Waipounamu), Rakihura and Rekohu (2012) 295 Aotea MB 13 (295 AOT 13) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...which they rely. The Applicants had 60 days to provide a further submission that set out clearly the jurisdiction of this Court that would enable me to hear the application. Then on 9 February 2012 Mr Pue applied for an extension of time for the filing of further submissions. An additional submission was then filed on 6 March 2012. [3] Unfortunately, Mr Pue was subsequently killed in an accident. No further submissions appear to have been received from Mr Waikerepuru. 295...

7. [2018] NZEnvC 022 Auckland Council v Auckland Council [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...consent for works associated with the protection of the esplanade reserve which runs between Kohu Street and Marine View at Orewa Beach, 3 including to construct a walkway, sea wall and associated access structures. [2] Auckland Council has filed an appeal under s 120(1), relying on subsection (a), that it is the Applicant. The issues [3] On reading the file, the Court had reservations as to whether an appeal could be commenced by a consent authority against its own decision....

8. Tan v Ministry of Social Development (Strike-Out Application) [2020] NZHRRT 2 [pdf, 468 KB]

   ...1 [This decision is to be cited as Tan v Ministry of Social Development (Strike-Out Application) [2020] NZHRRT 2] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 2 2 BACKGROUND [2] Mr Tan’s claim was filed on 14 October 2015. A statement of reply was filed on 18 November 2015. [3] On 12 August 2016 the Tribunal directed Mr Tan to make complete disclosure of the following two categories of documents by 7 October 2016: [3.1] All documents

9. BS v TT [2019] NZDT 1485 (5 December 2019) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...July 2019, after they had separated, TT used her [Telecommunications provider] online account without her permission or knowledge to purchase a [phone] for $1,699.00 plus insurance of $15.95. 2. BS now claims the total charge of $1,714.95 plus her filing fee from TT. TT did not attend the hearing or present any defence to the claim. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing going ahead. 3. The issues to be determined are whether TT used BS’s account to purchase the phone, an...

10. [2022] NZEmpC 84 Singh v Dhaliwal [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...this Court for exercise of its powers to fine, imprison, or sequester the property of the person in default.2 2 Employment Relations Act 2000, ss 138(6) and 140(6). Application for orders in this Court [4] Mr Singh subsequently filed a statement of claim on 22 October 2021 seeking sanctions due to default on the part of the first and second defendants. [5] The Registry was advised by email that service had been effected on 30 October 2021. When no defence was rec...