Search Results

1. EG & SG v BT & MT [2024] NZDT 365 (18 June 2024) [pdf, 152 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 365 APPLICANT EG and SG RESPONDENT BT and MT The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons [1] EG and SG claim that their neighbours, BT and MT, have erected screens in BT and MT’s property near the parties’ joint fence. EG and SG find these unattractive and aesthetically displeasing. EG and SG also object that BT and MT have...

2. LCRO 122/2015 NP v AO (21 May 2018) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...they cost a lot of money”. [10] She and others met Mr AO at Ms T’s home later that day, obtained a key from the neighbour, and undertook “a brief perusal of her effects”. [11] Mrs NP says that when she asked Mr AO later for further information to assist her and her siblings in Australia in possibly making a claim, he did not respond and continued not to return her calls. 3 [12] Mrs NP and her siblings engaged a lawyer who corresponded with Mr AO in October 2014. M...

3. LAP contract for services [pdf, 753 KB]

   ...comply with the procedure in the relevant policy, including any requirements to inform the Secretary and find a replacement. 5. Secretary’s obligations 5.1. The Secretary will, once the Secretary has all relevant information that has been requested from the Provider, promptly: 5.1.1. make decisions relating to Approvals 5.1.2. objectively and fairly deal with Legal Aid Complaints in accordance with clause 9 of this Contract, the Complaints Management policy in the Provider...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 73/06 CE Bay of Plenty DHB v NZ PSA [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...contents in seeking solicitor/client costs against the PSA… [7] The letter was faxed to the defendant on the same day. [8] On 30 August 2004, 10.37am the Board’s solicitors received a copy of a letter the PSA had forwarded to the Authority, requesting an extension of time for filing and serving briefs of evidence, to Wednesday, 1 September 2004. At this time the Board had received no response from the PSA to its letter of 26 August. [9] By facsimile dated 30 Augus...

5. EE v D Ltd & G Ltd [2024] NZDT 862 (9 December 2024) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...manifested only very occasionally. Any issue could reasonably be expected to show itself more often. e. I have considered the fact that [a friend] and NU were topping up coolant in the vehicle, and that this may have masked any issue. However no information is available as to how often and how much the vehicle was topped up by and so this offers no support to the allegations that have been made. Did D Ltd provide its services with reasonable care and skill? 11. The relevant l...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 1 Kilpatrick v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...and the ISC. When they would not agree with Ms Kilpatrick’s interpretation, she stated that she was going to lodge an Operations Occurrence Report (OOR) against her supervising flight attendants in any event. The Captain and the First Officer formed the view that Ms Kilpatrick had it in for Ms Coyle and was intent on causing her trouble. During evidence these matters were not in fact denied by Ms Kilpatrick, although she claims that she did not breach policy by going on to the...

7. [2010] NZEmpC 154 Villegas v Visypak (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...also a union delegate. His terms and conditions were contained in the Visypak (NZ) Ltd Collective Employment Agreement 2008-2011 (the CA). [4] On 5 September 2008 he received a written warning for an incident on his fork hoist that Visypak claimed should have been reported as a near miss. It found that he had driven across a wet floor in such a manner that he had lost control of the fork hoist, slid sideways and nearly struck a mobile floor scrubber that was being driven by a...

8. Dooney v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 237 [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...Hearing: 30 November 2022 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: M Williams for the Appellant J Sumner for the Accident Compensation Corporation Judgment: 7 December 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury - s 26(2), Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 14 July 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decision...

9. LCRO 210/2018 RF v TG (27 August 2020) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...plead causes of action that were not in fact open to Ms TG to plead. [27] Mr RF argued that it was unreasonable for him to be criticised for making submissions on costs at the conclusion of the ERA hearing. He notes that he had made specific request of Ms TG as to whether she wished for him to provide submissions and had been instructed to do so. Further, Mr RF considered that the costs assessor had underestimated the costs involved in preparing the costs submission. 6 Natur...

10. HT v IF Ltd [2024] NZDT 333 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 217 KB]

    ...website was also updated to remove that requirement. 14. HT said he had seen on-line months before booking that there would be pre-departure testing for Covid. I accept that HT read this on the IF Ltd website. But there is no evidence that it formed part of the contract between him and IF Ltd at the time he booked his cruise, because he has been unable to provide any evidence that it was still on the IF Ltd website at the time of his booking. 15. HT cannot rely on something he r...