Search Results

1. Fulton v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 233 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 29 November 2022 Held at: Hamilton/Kirikiriroa Appearances: K Koloni for the Appellant T Gee for the Respondent Judgment: 5 December 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury - s 26, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 18 October 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decision...

2. Directory of Official Information 2019 S-U [pdf, 1.5 MB]

   Directory of Official Information Listings S-U About This is a living document; we endeavour to update it whenever there are changes to be made. If your department or agency’s information is out of date, please email official.correspondence@justice.govt.nz with the necessary amendments. official.correspondence@justice.govt.nz Ministerial Services Strategy, Governance & Finance mailto:official.correspondence@justice.govt.nz mailto:off

3. Tabram v Slater [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...[70] The Buy Smart Report – the relevant factors………………………………..[75] The level of general knowledge about leaky buildings in 2005…………………………………………………………………….[76] The information contained in the Buy Smart Report………………[77] The documents produced by Mr Slater when the report was discussed………………………………………………………………[79] The comments made by Mr Slater a...

4. UI & II v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 34 (31 January 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...‘reasonable care and skill’ only requires that suppliers apply reasonable judgement, which in the case of diagnostic services, requires that they go with the probabilities, applying the most likely fixes first. 11. No independent evidence, in the form of other expert opinion for example, was provided by UI and II to show that D Ltd’s recommendation to replace the seals on the 13-year old car was unreasonable in the circumstances. Further, D Ltd state that the leak appears to have...

5. OB v CM [2024] NZDT 121 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...“ahs” in clause 8 has been changed to “has”. The date for payment has been changed to 16th May 2024. In all other respects the wording of the order remains the same. Referee: G R Meyer Date: 26th April 2024 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 fo...

6. Q Ltd v UL [2024] NZDT 129 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...lease terms. The amount due is higher than the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, however Q Ltd reduce their claim to stay within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 4. The matter was adjourned after the first hearing for the parties to obtain further information. When the hearing resumed, I was unable to contact UL. Calls went straight to voicemail. There were no further submissions from UL, and she had not been in contact with the Tribunal. UL had been informed of the date of the hearing. I w...

7. UM v BD [2024] NZDT 699 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...after they declined to provide a replacement vehicle. I therefore find UM is entitled to a refund of 19 days hireage at $68.09 per day, which equates to $1293.71. Referee: DTR Edwards Date: 15 November 2024 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 reh...

8. KT & NT v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 374 (31 May 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...with its frame and motor. I find that to be reasonable and I further find that N Ltd should meet the entire replacement cost of the panels because the door was new. Referee: G R Meyer Date: 31st May 2024 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 r...

9. Hipango v Peehi - Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation (2008) 221 Aotea MB 152 (221 AOT 152) [pdf, 11 MB]

   ...any event; (i) two committee members, Colin Manson Bell and Robert Gray, who opposed the funding of the meetings and the appointment of a CEO, were not told of the times or venues for the meetings. Two of the election candidates were also not in formed 221 Aotea MB 165 about these meetings. The family and friends of the candidates described by the secretaty as a "dissident shareho lder group" were not invited to any of the meetings. When these shareholders asked for de...

10. LA OAJ Ltd v BK SJ Ltd UJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 83 (7 April 2022) [pdf, 220 KB]

    ...substantially reduced below the income he received for the equivalent period the year before. I note that at the hearing I asked LA whether he had received any government subsidies for loss of earnings during the period and he was unable to recall this information but said he did receive them during lockdowns in the 2020. LA suggested that the weekly subsidy payable may have been around $600.00 per week. 36. I consider that given the uncertainty about the amount of likely earnings in th...