Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 77 Halse v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...resolves an application by the first plaintiff, Mr Halse, for judgment by default against the defendant, the Hamilton City Council. The application is made on the ground that the Hamilton City Council has failed to file a statement of claim. [2] For the reasons explained, Mr Halse’s application is dismissed. It could have been struck out. Mr Halse challenges a determination of the Authority [3] Mr Halse is dissatisfied with a determination of the Employment Relations...

2. FF Ltd v BX [2024] NZDT 205 (24 January 2024) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...to IL. Furthermore, if this was not the case, BX contends that IL was not introduced to the property by FF Ltd. Issues: Does clause 5.1.3 of the Sole Agency agreement between BX, TD and FF Ltd provide for the payment of a commission form the 27 January sale of the property by BX to IL, to FF Ltd? 6. Clause 1.0 of the Sole Agency agreement lists ‘TD + BX’s, as joint owners of the property as ‘the Client’ who appoints FF Ltd as the client’s real estate agent for...

3. EQ v G Insurance [2023] NZDT 428 (14 September 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...District Court [2023] NZDT 428 APPLICANT EQ RESPONDENT G Insurance The Tribunal orders: G Insurance Limited is to pay EQ the sum of $30,000.00 on or before 3 October 2023. Reasons: 1. In May 2022 the council performed a pool safety inspection on EQ’s swimming pool and failed it due to the fencing. EQ was required to empty the pool until the fencing was repaired. EQ emptied the pool on 28 May. On 11-13 June there was a heavy rain event, the pool li...

4. IX v HO [2024] NZDT 90 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...to see any such evidence, no amount is awarded in regard to this part of the claim. 14. HO is to pay IX $1,200.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: M Wilson Date: 28 February 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

5. Duty Lawyer Policy v 2.13 [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Duty lawyers are not permitted to ask a person if they can be that person’s preferred lawyer. Similarly, they are not permitted to nominate or recommend any other lawyer (or firm/chambers) as the preferred lawyer. If a defendant specifically requests the duty lawyer act for them, they may be nominated as their preferred provider for Criminal Provider Approval Level 3 or 4 cases. In such circumstances, the duty lawyer must provide details as to why they have been nominated as preferre...

6. Duty Lawyer Policy v-2.14.pdf [pdf, 303 KB]

   ...Duty lawyers are not permitted to ask a person if they can be that person’s preferred lawyer. Similarly, they are not permitted to nominate or recommend any other lawyer (or firm/chambers) as the preferred lawyer. If a defendant specifically requests the duty lawyer act for them, they may be nominated as their preferred provider for Criminal Provider Approval Level 3 or 4 cases. In such circumstances, the duty lawyer must provide details as to why they have been nominated as preferre...

7. Duty Lawyer Policy v2.15.pdf [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...Duty lawyers are not permitted to ask a person if they can be that person’s preferred lawyer. Similarly, they are not permitted to nominate or recommend any other lawyer (or firm/chambers) as the preferred lawyer. If a defendant specifically requests the duty lawyer act for them, they may be nominated as their preferred provider for Criminal Provider Approval Level 3 or 4 cases. In such circumstances, the duty lawyer must provide details as to why they have been nominated as preferre...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 198 Head v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 388 KB]

   ...three interlocutory hearings over the course of six months. Disclosure was a substantial burden for IR’s counsel, as well as its discovery team. On the other hand, the plaintiffs failed to disclose relevant documents, which required follow-up requests. [12] An application to have Madison joined, although not initially opposed by the plaintiffs, was subsequently when it was argued Madison should be joined as a third party rather than as a defendant. Again, affidavit evidence, sub...

9. BS & WQ v K Ltd & ors [2023] NZDT 653 (2 November 2023) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...suggestion made by K Ltd. I further take into account the [Lawn Services Company] pricing was for the complete grounds that K Ltd relied on were from 2021. I expect the cost for the area to be remedied would have increased from 2021 and without updated information am satisfied that the price for the complete lawn might be sufficient to cover the partial lawn that needs remedying. Therefore, I find that BS and WQ are entitled to claim $8,000.00 from K Ltd and T Ltd and the remainder of the...

10. IN & Ors v GU & J Ltd [2024] NZDT 719 (26 August 2024) [pdf, 127 KB]

    ...voicemail. The claim went ahead without GU. 4. I called J Ltd for the hearing. I spoke to C, who is the manager of J Ltd. He said that since the collision occurred (in August 2023) J Ltd is under new ownership, and he and the current owners have no information about this claim. He said the former owner of J Ltd, E, had been made aware of the claim, but is currently overseas. The hearing went ahead without J Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Did GU, by his negligen...