Search Results

1. Bellingham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claim for personal injury) [2025] NZACC 51 (27 March 2025) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 27 March 2025 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury – ss 20, 25 and 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 13 September 2024. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review...

2. Te Manutukutuku Issue 33 [pdf, 5.2 MB]

   ...customary Maori land (without payment of any compen­ sation). Proposals for the return of Crown land to Maori and the establishment of a fund as compensation for parts of Te Whanganui-a­ Orotu now owned privately or by local authorities also formed part of the report. A further hearing to hear submissions on possible remedies has been tentatively set down for the end of October 1995. HoroluojPipiri 1995 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • From t...

3. AI v ZO LCRO 215 / 2011 (21 June 2013) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...on 30 September 2009. A further allegation made by Mr AI is that his signature on the appeal form is forged. He thinks or assumes this has been done by the Practitioner, or by someone else at the Practitioner’s direction. The Practitioner claims the signature had been done by Mr AI himself. [58] To add to the confusion, Mr AI claims to have personally signed an application form for the appeal in the Practitioner’s office well before the expiry of the appeal, and that the...

4. Theobald v Coulter [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...0300-Theobald page 1 of 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. BACKGROUND 2 2. THE PARTIES 3 3. CHRONOLOGY 5 4. THE CLAIMS 5 5. FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 7 Finish at Base of Wall Cladding 8 Installation of Flashings at Windows 9 Finish to Top of Parapets 10 Plaster Finish to External Corners 11 Ceiling in Bedro...

5. [2021] NZEmpC 59 Humphrey v Canterbury District Health Board [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...inquiry was conducted by Hon Kit Toogood QC. The allegations set out in the terms of reference focused on public statements and actions by Dr Humphrey, work relationships with Dr Humphrey and the safety of the work environment. [11] Dr Humphrey requested two weeks’ leave to enable him to respond to the allegations. The request was granted but a subsequent request to return to work was declined. This is now subject to a disadvantage grievance, which the DHB objects to on the b...

6. KD v TB Ltd [2022] NZDT 204 (11 July 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...for loss or damage can be made against VU (page 1, conditions of hire) and also provides that the hirer shall indemnify VU and its agents from and against all liability (page 2, cl 24). 7. Having carefully considered the available evidence and information, I find that the Staff Member owed KD a duty of care when helping him with the trailer, and that he failed to take reasonable care and this caused damage to KD’s car. I also find that KD did not cause or contribute to the damage....

7. TT v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 460 (29 August 2023) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...weeks’ written notice of termination without cause by either party and it also provides for immediate termination by the Licensee Agent in certain specified circumstances. 9. Q Ltd gave a wide variety of reasons that they considered TT’s performance, attitude (particularly in terms of time spent at work versus ‘time off’) and skills did not meet their expectations of an associate agent. It is clear from Ms C’s submissions on behalf of TT, that he was not particularly happy w...

8. N Ltd v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 423 (14 August 2023) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...spoke to TN before the sale and TN told him that he operated boats in the [Region 2] as part of his [fishing] business, and TN told him that his friend had a [Satellite Dome] that worked well for him. TX says that he did not give TN any specific information about where the Dome would or would not work, and he was not asked by TN to investigate what the coverage of the Dome was, and he did not know whether TN’s friend had the 33cm dome or the 45cm dome so he could not say whether the 33cm...

9. OH v T Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 570 (10 July 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT M Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT ST The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay OH the sum of $26,320.25 on or before 2 August 2024. Reasons: 1. OH planned to renovate his home and engaged T Consultants to perform a pre-demolition survey. The survey confirmed the presence of asbestos in the property, T Ltd were engaged by OH to remove the asbestos in April 2023. 2. As a prerequisite of any asbestos removal OH had to appoint an independent assesso...

10. LCRO 50/2020 M and N PQ v WR (23 April 2021) [pdf, 276 KB]

    ...statements made by company directors, unless the statements were proven to be false. [25] Ms QM saw no evidence of collusion between Mr WR and Mr ZT. She considered that both lawyers had treated each other with courtesy and respect. [26] She had formed a view that Mr WR had responded to queries from his clients in a quiet and courteous way and concluded that Mr WR, during the course of the mediation, “came across as knowledgeable and confident in a considered thoughtful manner...