Search Results

1. NM v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 512 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...breaches of the FTA or the CGA, or for that matter the terms and conditions of the contract between NM and the company, the claim is therefore dismissed. Referee: M Wilson Date: 25 October 2023 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 rehe...

2. NN v SG Ltd [2024] NZDT 111 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...Ltd is to pay NN $4,643.99 on or before 6 March 2024. 2. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. In early October 2023, NN’s [ute] (‘the ute’) was taken to SG Ltd with a suspected blown head cylinder. NN was informed the repair would cost approximately $1,500.00 for the head cylinder plus two days labour. The total quote for the job was in or around $3,000.00. Repairs were carried out and when NN went to collect the ute, he was charged $8,668.99 for th...

3. ST v OL [2025] NZDT 68 (11 March 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...any vehicle not changing lanes or not making a turn. This rule applies where a driver is moving from being parked on the side of the road into a driving lane on the road. This would include a driver who is conducting a U-turn. 10. The claim information filed by the insurer says that ST said she was parking on the side of the road when she was reversed into by OL. This is also what is stated in the claim form filed with the Tribunal. This is not consistent with the diagram of the acci...

4. [2006] NZEmpC AC 50/06 Tu'itupou v Guardian Healthcare Operations Ltd [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...endorsement is as follows: “Solicitor [Ms Schaaf] to lodge personal grievance”. In an affidavit of Mrs Tu’itupou sworn on 9 August 2006 but filed at the hearing, she states that this file note was not disclosed to Ms Schaaf when information was requested. Another file note prepared at the dismissal meeting was disclosed and is annexed to this subsequent affidavit. The two documents were clearly prepared by different persons present. Ms Tiaiti’s note appears to be more in...

5. Dennison v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late review, extenuating circumstances) [2025] NZACC 177 [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...assessed WPI of 30% less 11% that was subject to a previous lump sum compensation payment). The decision noted Mr Dennison was eligible for a top-up payment to account for the increase from 18-19%. [13] On 9 March 2024 Mr Dennison completed an ACC33 form requesting a review of the 2009 decision to reduce his WPI from 74% to 18%. When explaining why he was unable to apply earlier, Mr Dennison stated that he was not made aware of the review form at the time. [14] In a detailed writt...

6. AAT and AAU as Trustees of LM Trust v ZZH [2010] NZDT 17 (24 August 2010) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...have known of it, it must be certain, and the custom must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. In other words, to be implied by usage, a requirement to replace must be so common as to be able to be taken for granted, so prevalent that it forms part the Lease unless it is expressly excluded, or implicit in the language of the Lease. On the contrary, the Lease is specific about the obligations on termination, and does not require silage to be left. Even leaving that point as...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...