Search Results

1. KB v DC [2023] NZDT 732 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...statement of past or present fact. 8. I find a misrepresentation was made about the Car. 9. I say that because the Car was advertised as having a Garret Turbo, which it does not. 10. DC says he is not an expert on turbos and simply provided information he believed to be true. Having heard the evidence however, I am satisfied DC’s statement is a misrepresentation because I accept: a. the advertisement does clearly state the Car is fitted with a “big Garrett turbo”; b...

2. KB v OS [2022] NZDT 287 (28 March 2023) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...two of his friends in the car. He says he was involved in a verbal altercation with a pedestrian at a pedestrian crossing. KB says that the pedestrian then got into a van and followed his car. KB says that driver of the van later passed his car, performed a u-turn and drove towards KB’s car. 7. KB says that he pulled his car over to the side of the road in an evasive way, and the driver of the van drove into the right hand side of KB’s car, causing damage to the car. KB says that t...

3. BI v ID [2024] NZDT 806 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...consider all the evidence before me and find that it is more likely than not on the balance of probabilities, that ID has breached his duty of care because he failed to take reasonable care when driving, and to make sure the way was clear when performing the u-turn. When ID breached his duty of care and damage resulted, he was negligent, and therefore liable. 9. This is for the following reasons: a. Both parties provided written and oral evidence. In addition, BI provided evi...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 72 Horton v Fonterra Cooperative Group Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...justified. Factual findings [2] Mr Horton was employed at Fonterra’s Whareroa site in Hawera from September 1994 until his dismissal. It was not in issue that until the matter that led to his dismissal he had an exemplary work record and no form of disciplinary action was ever taken against him. [3] Mr Horton was a member of the Amalgamated Engineering, Printing and Manufacturing Union Inc (EPMU or the Union). Prior to his dismissal he was a union delegate and...

5. C Ltd v OB [2023] NZDT 83 (2 March 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...digging was to begin, OB was advised that some extra materials and work were going to be needed. On the day of the dig, costs escalated significantly, with an apparent change to the ground levels as well as other extra costs. OB signed a variation form which detailed the extra work but which did not record any extra price information. 4. OB says he was advised verbally that the extras listed on the variation form would cost $1800+GST. He says he also agreed to the use of a crane on the...

6. LCRO 158/2018 YCH v TSR (30 September 2020) [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...response was filed in this Office on 14 September 2018 by her advocate, Ms MNH. Ms TSR says whilst she supports the Committee’s decision, she is disappointed the Committee did not order a refund of her and Ms BSR’s legal costs incurred as requested in their complaint.10 Hearing [56] The parties attended (by teleconference) a review hearing in Auckland on 15 September 2020. Nature and scope of review [57] The nature and scope of a review have been discussed by the High Court...

7. LCRO 78/2017 UT v HB (26 June 2019) [pdf, 346 KB]

   ...1 Deliu v Hong [2012] NZHC 158, [2012] NZAR 209 at [39]–[41]. 2 Deliu v Connell [2016] NZHC 361, [2016] NZAR 475 at [2]. 7 (b) Did those obligations and duties include the duty for Mr HB to follow up his 2 December 2009 letter to Mr JWS requesting Mr JWS to confirm those instructions? If so, did Mr HB fulfil that duty? Wills Act 2007, s 14 application (c) Did Mr HB tell Ms UT at their 21 January 2010 meeting that he would “look into” making a section 14 application to...

8. Rhodes v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2022] NZACC 194 [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...Hearing: 27 September 2022 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: B Hinchcliff for the Appellant F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation Judgment: 4 October 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury through a series of events other than a gradual process- s 25, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 23 November 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an ap...

9. BORA Ngati Awa Claim Settlement Bill [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...the Bill of Rights. Section 14 BORA issue 12. Clause 21 of the Bill raises the issue of compliance with s 14 of the Bill of Rights. Section 14 protects the right to "freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form". 13. Clause 21 provides for protocols to be issued in the form set out in the deed of settlement. One of those protocols, the DOC Protocol, set out in Schedule 5.21 of the deed, raises fre...

10. [2017] NZEmpC 129 Phoenix Publishing Ltd v McCallum [pdf, 111 KB]

    ...had been given by the Authority in preparation for the investigation meeting. [6] In view of the fact that if leave is granted to Phoenix Publishing Ltd it will be seeking a hearing de novo of the entire matter, a good faith faith report was requested from the Authority pursuant to s 181 of the Act. That good faith report was prepared and delivered to the Court on 19 September 2017. The findings of the Authority were that Phoenix Publishing Ltd significantly obstructed the Authori...