Search Results

1. EB v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 328 (21 May 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...1.4 and 1.5 which included all claims, rights or entitlements in existence at the time or that might arise in the future. The deed was stated to be a bar and absolute defence to any other legal proceedings being commenced. [2] In July 2023, EB filed a claim against T Ltd in the Disputes Tribunal, alleging that the scope of work on which T Ltd had relied contained inaccuracies. T Ltd protested that the claim should be struck out. The referee who dealt with the claim declined to do so bu...

2. Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 22 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...compensation. [3] Along with disputes in relation to Mr Kaulima’s weekly compensation calculation, there have also been a number of proceedings in which jurisdiction was at issue. From time to time, the Corporation has provided Mr Kaulima with copy files in response to information requests. [4] On 13 August 2013, Mr Kaulima lodged a complaint with Mr Scott Pickering, the Chief Executive of the Corporation, copied to Mr John Key, the Prime Minister. Mr Kaulima referred to a nu...

3. D Ltd v Q Ltd [2025] NZT 36 (7 February 2025) [pdf, 121 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...

4. Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 149 (19 September 2024) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...Reviewer dated 13 March 2024. Background [2] On 17 May 1986, Mr Easthope suffered an accident. Subsequently, on 23 March 1989, he lodged a claim for cover with the Corporation. [3] Over the years, the Corporation adopted various physical file and electronic methods for the management of client information. Since 2007, this has been done using a central electronic system. Mr Easthope’s electronic file states that the physical file status is “destroyed”. The Corpora...

5. QC v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 549 (19 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...found when he got home that the torque wrench was not in the box of the goods he had been given. He contacted the Respondent and asked for the wrench, but the Respondent could not find it. He asked for a refund, but the Respondent did not pay. QC filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim for a refund of $90.00 for the cost of an item paid for but allegedly not provided by the Respondent. 3. The issue to be determined was as follows: a. On the balance of...

6. QW v DI [2024] NZDT 468 (18 June 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...of the Disputes Tribunal hearing there is no jurisdiction for the District Court to reach a finding different to that of the Referee. A Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside 20 working days if you have be...

7. Buckingham v Wycombe LCRO 93 / 2009 (31 July 2009) [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...Ms Buckingham initially contacted the Law Society regarding what she saw as a degree of tardiness in a response she was seeking from Ms. Wycombe (or her firm) in respect of a complaint she had raised, and also in respect of the handing on of her files to new lawyers. On 27 March 2009 Ms Buckingham, being dissatisfied with the response from Ms. Wycombe or her firm asked that the matter be dealt with as a complaint. The matter was accordingly referred to the Standards Committee. The...

8. LCRO Annual Report 2017 [pdf, 505 KB]

   ...could significantly improve the review process, in particular changes which would: (a) Remove the statutory limit on the number of Review Officers that can be appointed. This is currently restricted to three Officers. (b) Require parties filing complaints to have a direct connection with the subject matter of the complaint. (c) Allow for a Review Officer to direct in appropriate cases that the matter be heard on the papers without requirement for a formal hearing. (d) Allow...

9. LCRO 65/2017 IR v NW and EN (18 April 2019) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...the part of Mr NW, in that he charged a fee which was greater than the Committee considered fair and reasonable for the services he had provided to the estate. In reaching that determination, the Committee considered the evidence and submissions filed by both parties, weighed and balanced that and reached conclusions that supported the determination the Committee had made. [6] Neither party applied to this Office for a review of the first decision. Mr NW refunded money to the esta...

10. [2021] NZEnvC 022 Timberlink New Zealand Limited v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 2.3 MB]

    ...('ADR') and in preparation for an anticipated sequence of topic­ based hearings on the appeals. (3] I will traverse the various points made in support of and in opposition to the application shortly. In summary, the positions of those parties who filed memoranda and/ or attended is as follows: 3 Supports Opposes Friends, Kenepuru and Central Sounds Marlborough District Council (':tvIDC'), the Residents' Association and Clova Bay Aquaculture Interests,...