Search Results

1. Bryan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care Payments) [2024] NZACC 155 (30 September 2024) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Epilim was first prescribed for Jessica. Following acceptance of the claim, Ms Bryan applied for backdated attendant care for Jessica. On 29 September 2021, attendant care payments were approved and backdated to 1 April 2002. [6] Ms Bryan then requested the Corporation to consider payment for backdated attendant care for the period from 15 July 1992 to 1 April 2002. On 31 August 2022, the Corporation wrote to Ms Bryan stating that after considering the legislative requirement...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 196 KAQ v The Attorney-General [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...circumstances, when it is in the interests of justice to do so. [8] Rule 12 of the Rules specifies a range of matters that must be considered when determining an application for access. It provides: 12 Matters to be considered In determining a request for access under rule 11, the Judge must consider the nature of, and the reasons given for, the request and take into account each of the following matters that is relevant to the request or any objection to the request: (a) the o...

3. LK & NI v JK Ltd [2024] NZDT 636 (5 September 2024) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...the quote as per the request of the Applicants. 13. I find that the definition of “services” is sufficiently broad to include the provision of the initial indicative quote even if the quote had not been accepted nor any physical work performed. There remains a supply, which in this case, is the provision of the quote which gives rise to the customer’s right to accept/reject the same. 14. Given this, section 28 of the CGA then states that the service must be provided with...

4. BX v KI & NI [2024] NZDT 881 (7 June 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: KI and NI, jointly and severally, are to pay the sum of $16,800.00 to BX on or before 24 June 2024. Reasons: 1. In February 2018, BX saw an advertisement in the “Flatmates Wanted” category on [an online selling platform]. A married couple living in a four-bedroom house in [redacted] were looking for “Professional single or couple who want their own space”, and the rent was “$225 per week”. The advertisement stated: “The house is split in 2. We ha...

5. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...must approach Mr and Mrs AR’s application for review of the determination of the Standards Committee afresh. The parties [6] The Standards Committee processed the complaint as being a complaint by Mr AR. That is how the complaint application form was completed. The applicants for the review were recorded as “Mr & Mrs AR”. Mrs AR is not a person who could apply for a review as she was not, and had not been treated by the Standards Committee as, a complainant. However, Mr...

6. [2021] NZACC 40 - OBrian v ACC (25 February 2021) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...Hinchcliff for the Appellant L Hawes-Gandar for the Respondent Judgment: 25 February 2021 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE NICOLA MATHERS [1] On 8 December 2017 the Accident Compensation Corporation (“ACC”) declined Mr O’Brian’s request for elective surgery to his right shoulder and also declined the payment of weekly compensation. Mr O’Brian reviewed those decisions and on 8 October 2018 the Reviewer upheld ACC’s decisions. Mr O’Brian now appeals tho...

7. [2022] NZACC 106 - Easthope v ACC (2 June 2022) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...brace. [3] The Corporation’s position therefore is that the appeal is now moot and there are no substantive issues to be determined. ACR 13/12 [4] The appellant raises various other issues in relation to the historical management of his claim. The respondent’s position is that these matters are outside of the scope of this appeal. Background [5] Mr Easthope has cover in respect of an accident that occurred on 17 May 1986 when he was spear tackled while playing a gam...

8. TC v F Ltd LM [2021] NZDT 1590 (12 August 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...fail to meet the acceptable quality standard. What about the fact that LM also represented that it had a current warrant? 8. Having a current warrant is a legal requirement. LM is required to get the warrant and must as a matter of necessity inform TC that the requirement has been met. I do not accept TC’s view that this means that LM is guaranteeing the warrant is validly issued or that the vehicle is in fact road legal. That is not fair to LM who is not required to guarantee t...

9. MT v CE Ltd [2022] NZDT 141 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...find that MT is entitled to the sum of $421.48 for a refund of the original fees, plus damages for the extra costs involved in setting up with a new provider. Referee: K Rendall Date: 15 August 2022 Page 3 of 3 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...

10. EQ v MT Ltd [2022] NZDT 45 (16 May 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

    ...observed that some of the truck loads of fill delivered were not clean fill but were contaminated with building materials. He discussed this with TG, from MT Ltd, and was initially assured that this would be remedied. However, on 22 December 2022 TG informed him that MT Ltd was removing its equipment, and would not complete the job, remove the contaminated fill, or remedy other damage done to the property. 2. EQ claims the sum of $30,000.00 for the cost of remedial work, and completion...