Search Results

1. D Ltd v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 569 (3 November 2023) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...out investigations and reporting in accordance with the requirements of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. 3. The property was subsequently purchased by P Ltd, part of the DC group of companies. DC signed a transfer of authority form (required under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act) in September 2021 and D Ltd’s work continued. 4. Five of D Ltd’s invoices from August 2021 to October 2022 were paid, and two invoices totalling $19,429.26 remain unpaid....

2. NF v EN [2024] NZDT 165 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...nuisance or an annoyance to EN in breach of clause 7 of the lease. 13. NF accepted she had parked on the common driveway blocking EN’s entrance to her driveway. She said she did that on the day that EN first put pots on her paving stones, which form part of the area of exclusive use around EN’s flat. She said she did not threaten her but asked her to move the pots so that she could reverse into her garage. 14. NF said she now understood the planter boxes to be on the area of ex...

3. Kwak v Park [2015] NZWHT Auckland 3 [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...skill are exercised in the building of houses and that the ambit of the developer’s duty, which is well defined in case law, is related to construction and not to inspection and certification which are regulatory functions. [27] The Kwaks’ former counsel in submissions on removal placed some emphasis on the contractual relationship between Mr Park and the private certifier and suggested that this provided a hook for the developer’s liability. I noted however, that it is n...

4. LCRO 220/2016 UT v LE (18 December 2018) [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008 (the Rules) the Committee made the following findings: (a) Mrs LE’s intention was that ownership of the property by a trust would “ensure it was not subject to claims by her or her son’s past, current or future partners”. (b) Mrs LE “must have made Mr UT aware that her chief concern was to…protect [the property] from a prospective claim by Mr GJ”. (c) Mr UT ought to have: taken detai...

5. KQ v Accident Compensation Corporation (Independence Allowance) [2025] NZACC 050 [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...Corporation confirmed the appellant had agreed to a one-off Independence Allowance payment of $10,959.00, and that this would be paid shortly. [11] On 6 October 2023, Dr Ramsey filed a further medical certificate seeking a reassessment. The form, however, suggested that the Corporation might have declined the claim and that this was a request for a first assessment on the claim. Dr Ramsey did not complete the section of the application form regarding a reassessment, and so did n...

6. OH Ltd v NI Ltd [2020] NZDT 1320 (30 September 2020) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...of $3,087.15 for maintenance costs incurred after May 2020, plus the cost of removing the doors ($3,796.15). NI paid for the maintenance costs, which left only the removal costs in dispute. 4. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Which documents formed part of the contract between OH and NI? (b) In what circumstances was OH entitled under that contract to claim removal costs? (c) Are removal costs recoverable? Which documents formed part of the contract between OH and NI? 5. Th...

7. FO v SQ [2025] NZDT 19 (17 January 2025) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...have to consider are: a. Was there a contract between the parties? b. If so, has it been breached by SQ? c. If so, what remedy is appropriate? Was there a contract between the parties? 6. The relevant law is contract law. A contract is formed when there is an agreement between the parties, or where there is a meeting of the minds between them. What was agreed is looked at objectively, which means by looking at what was said and done. 7. I find a contract was formed when...

8. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 65 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 3.2 MB]

   ...ministerial portfolios, includ­ ing those of Associ ate Minister for Economic Develop ment, Associate Minister of Fi nance, Minister of Com­ merce, Minis ter of Com muni ca tions, Minis ter of Correc tions, Minister of Immi gra tion, Minis ter for Information Tech nology, Minis ter of Labour, Minis ter for State­Owned Enterprises, Minis ter of Sta tistics, and Minister of Transport. In 2009, he was made a Com pan ion of the Queen’s Service Order for services as a member of Pa...

9. LCRO 109/2023 W and F JM v EB and MK [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...information available if the LCRO considers that the review can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties. This is commonly referred to as a hearing “on the papers”. [29] After undertaking a preliminary appraisal of the file, I formed the provisional view that the review could properly be conducted on the papers. The parties were given the opportunity to comment on that proposal. The applicants wished to be heard in person. The respondents were content with the matte...

10. Nisha v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 23 (7 July 2011) [pdf, 90 KB]

    ...application was in progress. [6.8] In May 2010, the Teachers Council closed the application due to lack of documentation. It appears the Adviser knew of that development and failed to inform the Complainant. Furthermore, the Teachers Council had requested the information from the Adviser twice and no steps had been taken by the Adviser. The Adviser did request further documents in June 2010 and they were supplied by the Complainant. 3 [6.9] On 8 August 2010, the Complainant...