Search Results

1. BI v O Inc [2024] NZDT 725 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...not agree with what he describes as “a political narrative of oppressor/oppressed racist ideology.” He also takes issue with a number of public statements made by various members of the leadership of O Inc which he says expressed erroneous information and showed O Inc in a poor light. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. KT, the Chief Executive of O Inc, provided a different context for the comments BI complained about. He also stated that O Inc has the largest proporti...

2. E Ltd v XL [2024] NZDT 563 (9 July 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...of section 29 of the CGA by E Ltd. 24. Accordingly, I do not find that any further amount is payable to E Ltd. 25. The claim is, therefore, dismissed. Referee: S Malaviya Date: 9 July 2024 Page 4 of 4 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...

3. LCRO 184/2015 WD v YR (6 July 2017) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...[30] The application for review was not withdrawn and in October 2016 Mr WD provided a “Complete statement for LCRO hearing” which was forwarded to Mr YR.20 [31] No further comment was received from Mr YR, and in November 2016 this Office requested consent from both parties for the review to be completed on the material to hand. Both parties provided their consent and the review was scheduled for completion on the papers.21 [32] On 27 February 2017 this Office received a docum...

4. KK & PM v S Ltd & SH Ltd [2023] NZDT 43 (23 January 2023) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...professional, despite black pipes being present and the house being constructed during the period when those pipes were used. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 7 13. KK and PM submitted that at the very least the report should have informed them of the possibility that some of the pipes may have been the original Dux Quest piping that was prone to splitting and leaking, both along the pipe and also at the joins. 14. EQ agreed that he would notify his client of the presenc...

5. ZQN Apartments TRI 2021-100-001 Procedural Order 9 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...accepted that an application for removal or strike out should only be made as a preliminary issue where a claim is so untenable in fact and law as to be unlikely to succeed. [12] The Tribunal’s approach to removals has been to consider whether the claims against a prospective party are tenable. In Saffioti v Jim Stephenson Architect Ltd, Katz J cautioned against removing parties at a preliminary stage in circumstances where the claims asserted against them are tenable, but weak.2...

6. [2016] NZEmpC 109 Dotcom v Orduna [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...proceedings under EMPC 86/2016 are Mr Dotcom’s cross-challenge to the same determination of the Authority issued on 11 March 2016 as to the matters found against him by the Authority. The allegations, admissions and denials in the pleadings likewise form the background to document disclosure issues. [6] At the heart of these proceedings are the questions of whether Mr Dotcom was the employer; and, if so, whether the individual parties were disadvantaged or dismissed unjustifiably...

7. [2021] NZACC 156 - Holton v ACC (4 October 2021) [pdf, 380 KB]

   ...the time was visiting friends and the attack took place as he was putting his twin children into a vehicle prior to departure. [5] The same day the appellant was assessed by the Accident and Emergency Clinic, Lincoln Road, Henderson. The ACC claim form submitted the same day described what happened as follows: Attacked – inj back/L hand/R hand/laceration R elbow – machete. [6] At the time the appellant was working as a boat builder with Holton Marine. [7] He was referred f...

8. [2019] NZEnvC 035 Taylor v Small [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...memorandum was filed and hearing dates of 25 and 26 July 2018 agreed. A timetable for evidence was imposed based on the parties' suggestions. 3 The evidence timetable was later extended, and the potential hearing date was adjourned at the request of both parties.4 Judicial telephone conference: the Court was advised that the filing of evidence had been completed and a report date of 3 August 2018 suggested to outline the outcome of a settlement meeting and advise whether a...

9. Moore - Waitara East Section 81 B [2018] Chief Judge's MB 842 (2018 CJ 842) [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...4.10(3) of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 seeking to review the Registrar’s decision to refuse to file an application made by him on 7 May 2018 pursuant to s 45 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (A20180003483). [2] Following a number of requests to Mr Moore to provide further information, the Registrar informed the applicant by letter dated 10 August 2018 of her decision to refuse to file the application on the basis that it did not comply with r 8.2(2)(b) of the Māori Land

10. CL v BK [2021] NZDT 1612 (9 August 2021) [pdf, 225 KB]

    ...except in certain very limited circumstances, none of which apply in this instance (section 42, Disputes Tribunal Act 1988). 30. BK is to pay CL $2,000.00. Referee: N Blake Date: 9 August 2021 Page 4 of 4 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...