Search Results

1. Cook v Legacy Church [2023] NZHRRT 31 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...agency that was investigated by the Privacy Commissioner and is not named as a defendant in this claim. It is beyond doubt that the Tribunal can have no jurisdiction over a legal entity that is not a party to this claim. [7] Legacy Church’s defence to Ms Cook’s claim has always been that “Legacy Church holds no personal information about Alisha Cook.” For reasons explained below, the Tribunal accepts that Legacy Church was not Ms Cook’s landlord, that no request was made...

2. [2024] NZREADT 05 CAC v Pang (6 March 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...imposed and an understanding of the extenuating circumstances surrounding his actions. He is committed to rectifying his mistake and moving forward responsibly. [26] On 21 February 2024, Mr Pang sent to the Tribunal his New Zealand bank account statements from 22 February 2022 until 15 February 2024. He submits that the accusations and penalties sought by the Committee are unreasonable and unfair. [27] Mr Pang further states that Ms Mok’s comment that his submissions to the...

3. [2023] NZREADT 33 - CAC 2102 v LL (4 December 2023) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...costs of the disciplinary regime. 2. Members who appeared on charges should make a proper contribution towards costs. 3. Costs are not punitive. 4. The practitioner’s means, if known, are to be considered. 5. A practitioner’s defence should not be deterred by the risks of a costs order. 6. In a general way, 50 per cent of reasonable costs is a guide to an appropriate costs order subject to a discretion to adjust upwards or downwards. 7 TSM v Professional Co...

4. Gwak and Kim TRI-2020-100-006 [2024] NZWHT AUCKLAND 01 [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...relevant chronology is: (a) A building consent was issued for the construction of the original dwelling on 5 June 2002. Insulclad was nominated as the cladding; (b) Construction occurred from around September 2002 until early 2003; (c) A producer statement from the cladding installer, the fourth respondent, was issued on 15 December 2002. The producer statement confirmed that the Styroplast cladding system had been installed, not Insulclad; (d) The built date for the propert...

5. [2009] NZEmpC AC 26/09 Merchant v CE of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...that this was justified by the manner in which the plaintiff’s case was conducted, including: a) Changes to the legal basis of the plaintiff’s claim between the Authority’s investigation and the Court hearing. b) Three amendments to the statement of claim requiring amendments to the statement of defence. c) A need to seek further particulars of aspects of the plaintiff’s claim and what is described as the “vague and evasive” nature of the particulars which were provi...

6. DX v OI Ltd [2019] NZDT 1529 (24 October 2019) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...clearly an act of conversion unless OI can establish a defence justifying its actions. 18. To justify sale of the car, OI pointed to an email DX sent on 17 August 2018 stating, “The contents of the car should cover your costs.” However, this statement was made in the context of DX continuing to contest liability for the costs, and in response to OI’s warning that it would refer any balance owing after sale of her car to Baycorp, and that DX’s credit rating could be affected. 1...

7. Wild v Ministry for Primary Industries (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 69 [pdf, 252 KB]

   1 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM1 [1] Ms Wild filed her statement of claim alleging the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) interfered with her privacy on 23 June 2021. Ms Wild’s claim alleged MPI breached 1 This decision is to be cited as Wild v Ministry for Primary Industries (Strike Out) [2024] NZHRRT 69. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2024] NZHRRT 69 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA Reference No. HRRT 046/2021 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 2020 BET...

8. Boyce v Westpac NZ Ltd [2015] NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...coffees or other small items. The cards were in the personal names of the team leaders but the funds were provided by Strettons. [3] In relation to the pre-paid debit card issued to Mr Boyce, Westpac on 2 September 2013 issued an account summary or statement for the period 5 August 2013 to 2 September 2013 setting out the transactions which had occurred from the time the account was opened on 15 August 2013 to the last transaction on 30 August 2013. This statement was sent to Mr Boyce...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Hart [2012] NZLCDT 20 [pdf, 455 KB]

   ...deponent on behalf of the respondent, was called by the Tribunal to be cross examined because of what appeared initially to be a stark conflict between her evidence and the evidence of one of the complainants. [11] In addition a number of areas of the defence had been signalled by Mr Hart’s previous counsel, both Mr Katz QC (at the hearing concerning the application to amend Charge 4), and Mr G King who appeared for Mr Hart in December 2011. 4 During the December heari...

10. Gray v Tulip Holdings Ltd [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...(Now struck out) Eighth respondent CLAIM NO.00499 – GRAY DETERMINATION.doc 2 INDEX INTRODUCTION 5 MATERIAL FACTS 6 THE HEARING 10 THE CLAIM 12 CAUSES OF ACTION 13 THE DEFENCE FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT 14 THE DEFENCE FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT 14 THE DAMAGE TO THE CLAIMANTS’ DWELLING 15 THE CLAIMANTS’ LOSSES AS A RESULT OF THEIR DWELLING BEING A LEAKY BUILDING 15 Repair costs 16 D...