Search Results

1. Berry v Rondel LCRO 130 / 2011 (26 April 2012) - Penalty Decision [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...that he did not protect Ms Berry’s interests when making arrangements to insure the property. 7) That Mr Rondel was in breach of Rules 7 and 7.1 in failing to report to Ms Berry following completion of the transaction. [3] In that decision, I requested that the parties provide submissions as to penalty orders and publication, which both parties have now done. Mr Rondel is now represented by Mr AK who has been appointed by Mr Rondel’s insurer. [4] Prior to reconvening the hear...

2. Te Manutukutuku Issue 23 [pdf, 2.5 MB]

   ...Crown Research Institutes or health sector entities are subject to the protection mechanism. Land owned by regional or territorial authorities, State Owned Enterprises and some tertiary institutions are excluded. The Department of Survey and Land Information (DOSLI) will be responsible for sending a list of all sur­ plus land to iwi at regular intervals. The lists will also be published in national newspapers. Iwi will be given a minimum of 30 days to file their response. Information...

3. M (C M Trust) v Tower Insurance Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0012 [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...specified documents from Tower. They have taken care to particularise those documents they seek. They say that such documents are or may be relevant to issues before the Tribunal because they relate to their claim that Tower wrongly declined their requests to take steps to protect the dwelling from the weather and that loss and damage has arisen from that wrongful refusal. The steps allegedly required are referred to as the “make safe” repairs. [12] The grounds for Tower’...

4. [2012] NZEmpC 215 NZ Language Centres Ltd (formerly GEOS NZ Ltd) v Page [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...discussions before Mr Page was publicly and humiliatingly demoted. [28] On 19 December 2008 Mr Page raised by email a personal grievance in response to his treatment during the conference and the implications for his current position. He also requested payment of his unpaid bonus for the 2006/07 year, which he had previously sought. He received no response from anyone at GEOS to his email. [29] In December 2008 Mr Page was invited to Bali to attend what was described as a...

5. FC & KC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 478 (28 August 2023) [pdf, 219 KB]

   ...unfit to continue, which they didn’t and weren’t. 32. Accordingly, the is no basis for X Ltd paying general damages for physical and emotional distress. Referee: L Mueller Date: 28 August 2023 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...

6. BK & KK v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 405 (3 July 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...had confidence that the pump was fit for purpose, and that they were rejecting it under the Consumer Guarantees Act (“the CGA”). They added that they were not confident that Q Ltd could provide proper advice and installation services, and they requested a refund for the price of the pump. [6] KK and BK said that, despite that email, Q Ltd had proceeded to replace the motor. As they could not leave the property without a water supply, and had not received a refund to enable them to b...

7. Tai Rakena v Corrections (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 19 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...DECISION: 17 May 2018 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 [1] By application dated 4 May 2018 the Chief Executive, Department of Corrections has applied to have these proceedings struck out on the grounds: [1.1] The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the claim as no investigation has been conducted in terms of the Privacy Act 1993 (PA), s 82(1)(a). It is submitted the policy reasons in Gray v Ministry for Children (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 13 apply. [1.2] Mr Tai Rakena has f...

8. LS v MIS [2021] CEIT-2020-0024 [pdf, 387 KB]

   ...lathe linings, and concrete perimeter ring beam and piled foundations. [4] While the extent of the damage is not an issue before me at this stage, it is important to note the effects of the Canterbury Earthquake Sequence (CES) events, as LS’s claims for damage, and the parties’ interactions regarding these claims, form the background to the election issue. The house was damaged by the 4 September 2010, Darfield earthquake, and the 22 February 2011, Port Hills earthquake.1 (...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 179 George v Auckland Council [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...the employee/contractor issue and the fringe benefit tax issue. Ms George could not recall the meeting, but accepts that it took place. [11] Two reports were subsequently produced by TEAM for the Council. The first, which remained in draft form, was dated 21 December 2007 (the draft December 2007 report). It dealt with the contractor issue. The second was dated 8 February 2008 (the February 2008 report). It dealt with the fringe benefit tax issue. Both reports were sent to M...

10. BD v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 773 (12 December 2023) [pdf, 156 KB]

    ...that date, or such later date as agreed between the parties, F Ltd can dispose of the bike as it sees fit. 56. The claim is dismissed. Referee: P Byrne Date: 12 December 2023 Page 6 of 6 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 reh...