Search Results

1. M Ltd v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 416 (30 August 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...date, M Ltd also paid a sum of $2,777.25 to P Ltd in error. That money was supposed to be paid to another third party that M Ltd owed money to. It was paid into P Ltd’s bank account. 3. M Ltd contacted P Ltd soon after the error was noticed and requested that the money be repaid back to M Ltd. P Ltd refused to return the money. 4. M Ltd contacted its bank and paid for a recovery request which was actioned by M Ltd’s bank. That request from the bank was declined. 5. M Ltd...

2. [2019] NZEmpC 130 Packwood v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 494 KB]

   ...In the first part of her document, Ms Packwood says that false evidence was given to the Authority by two members of ANZ, and that what she described as new evidence was also presented at that hearing. She also says that evidence which she had requested from ANZ, which she says would have absolved her, was never given (because that point was not reached). [31] Then, responding to the strike out grounds raised by ANZ, she referred to the events that occurred on the second day of th...

3. [2008] NZEmpC AC 49/08 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...conflict was their different perceptions of who was responsible for individual patients. Ms Clear believed that patients were “hers.” From Mrs Parata’s point of view, generally the patients were cared for by a team of midwives unless one requested a particular midwife to care for her. This led to mutual antagonism. [25] Midwives who had worked at the Tokoroa Maternity Ward from the 1970s onwards gave their views about this relationship and the working environment. Whi...

4. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...page 4 of 34 • Mr John Lyttle, the WHRS Assessor, called by the adjudicator; • Mr Stephen Cody, a team leader in the building consents division of the Council, called by the Council; 1.7 Mr Clive Lewis did not formally give evidence, but he had filed comprehensive submissions and expert observations prior to the hearing, and he did endorse these opinions whilst asking questions of the other witnesses. As none of the parties had any questions to ask

5. [2014] NZEmpc 85 McCartney v Atlas Concrete Ltd and First Union [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...rules?”. [3] The starting point is, therefore, the relevant rules of the Union at the time it declined to continue to represent Mr McCartney in the matter of his personal grievance with his former employer. [4] Mr Cranney has, at the Court’s request, supplied certified copies of the Union’s rules for the years 2007 and 2008. Those were then the rules of the National Distribution Union Inc (NDU) but the fact that the rights and obligations in law of the NDU have been assumed...

6. [2021] NZACC 28 - Williams v ACC (4 February 2021) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...appellant’s covered injury was not established. [2] The issue on this appeal is whether this decision was correct. Background [3] The appellant sustained an injury to his right foot on 28 September 2018 when, as described in an ACR45 form submitted to the Corporation, the fork of a forklift dropped onto his right foot. [4] On 28 September 2018, the appellant who then was 26, presented at the emergency department of Dunedin Hospital with a crush injury to his right fo...

7. TX & AS v WU and ors [2023] NZDT 88 (22 March 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...couple. The price was much lower than they hoped but they liked the couple and wanted to help them. 12. The law relevant to this claim is the general law of contract and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. A contract is a binding commitment formed by an offer made by one party and a subsequent acceptance by the other party. The relevant contract in this case is the sale and purchase agreement dated 22 June 2022. There is a well-known principle of contract law which is “caveat...

8. USM v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 291 (27 September 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...USM’s vehicle outside unit 3, the unit next to the gym. There are two ‘no parking’ signs on the windows, and a sign which carries the letters PO Ltd. Although the photographs do not show any details of the signs clearly, they convey enough information for me to find that USM parked in PO Ltd’s carpark. Did USM breach the terms of a contract or commit the tort of trespass? Was there a contract? 10. Q Ltd relies on the law of contract. It says the ‘no parking’ sign cons...

9. HX & H Ltd v J Ltd [2025] NZDT 75 (14 February 2025) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...from $NZ11,213.00 to $NZ15,762.00. (e) A letter was provided from Mr T, who is known by HX, wrote that he inspected the trailer and found that the sub-frame was constructed out of steel, but the deck/tub and mudguards were all manufactured from formed aluminium. He considered that “it would appear that the trailer was in good sound workable/usable condition prior to the impact damage”. 7. HX considered the price to replace the trailer with a steel one would be $10,000.00. Ste...

10. KG v TQ [2023] NZDT 789 (22 December 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

    ...entitled to a refund for the tree removal? 9. Section 36 (1)(a) of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 states that “A party to a contract may cancel it if, by words or conduct, another party (B) makes it clear that B does not intend to - perform B’s obligations under the contract”. If a party to a contract has paid money in anticipation of the other party’s performance, but there has been a total failure to perform by the other party, the remedy is recovery of the sum paid....