Search Results

1. Moriori Claims Settlement bill [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...with articles 14 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable to ss 20 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act.3 Exclusion of remedy of compensation 9. Clause 24(3) of the Bill excludes damages and other forms of monetary compensation as a remedy for any failure by the Crown to comply with a protocol under the Bill. 10. This clause may be seen to raise the issue of consistency with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights Act, namely the right to bring ci...

2. LCRO 57/2018 G RC and D RC v YS (30 April 2019) [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...available”. [23] The Committee concluded that Mr YS “acted appropriately in the termination of the retainer” having received the report from Dr EF, who had been appointed by the Family Court, to assess Mrs RC’s mental capacity. (2) Request for Mrs RC’s files, records (a) Mr G, as attorney [24] The Committee accepted that “it was arguable” that Mr YS “was entitled to refuse to provide” Mrs RC’s files to Mr G when Mr G’s conduct, as Mrs RC’s attorney, wa...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 153 Roy v BOT of Tamaki College [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...circumstances, Mr Roy elected to await the provision to him of a copy of the Board’s report to the NZTC which it was obliged statutorily to make “immediately” following his resignation with effect from 11 October 2010. [33] Although Mr Roy did not request the Board to provide to him its reasons for the actions which he says amounted to his constructive dismissal (pursuant to s 120 of the Act), what he did subsequently was tantamount to doing so. From 30 September 2010 Mr Ro...

4. Tane v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2025] NZDC 36 (27 February 2025) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...June 2021, a review application was filed against Wellnz’s decisions. 5 [16] On 22 September 2021, Ms Tane’s then advocate emailed Wellnz, noting that Mr Van Nieuwenhuizen had referred to a L5/S1 facet joint injury. The email formally requested that Wellnz issue a cover decision in regard to that diagnosis. In the meantime, the review application for the earlier decisions stood adjourned. [17] On 27 October 2021, Dr Courtenay Kenny, Occupational Specialist, having conduct...

5. LCRO 52/2022 AD v OC (12 July 2024) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...the time. The respondent issued four invoices for his work, dated 31 August 2020, 30 September 2020, 30 October 2020 and 27 November 2020. The applicant paid the first invoice. [18] In February 2021, in response to receipt of a statement and request for payment from the firm, the applicant requested that the other three invoices be “put on hold” until his dispute with the Council was resolved, so that the applicant could ascertain what the respondent’s alleged conduct in m...

6. [2011] NZEmpC 68 Army Surplus Disposals Ltd v Reed [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...produce this book to the Authority. (d) Mr Doyle claimed he could provide further evidence that Mr Reed received the money alleged if he was given time. The Authority Member allowed Mr Doyle 10 days following the investigation to provide this information but he failed to do so. [5] The determination records findings and orders as follows: [7] By operating its business on a cash basis, without documentation, the respondent has put itself in a vulnerable position. In the absence...

7. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...comply with an order for discovery, a notice for further particulars, a notice for interrogatories, or other similar requirement under these rules; or (v) failing, without reasonable justification, to accept an offer of settlement whether in the form of an offer under rule 14.10 or some other offer to settle or dispose of the proceeding; … 24. The claimant states that items (i), (ii) and (iii) above cover the Council’s behaviour in question. 25. The claimant also refer...

8. [2021] NZEmpC 19 Restaurant Brands Ltd v Unite Inc [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...at various locations across New Zealand. [2] Unite says that Restaurant Brands’ current statement of claim does not comply with reg 11(1)(d) of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 (the Regulations). It is Restaurant Brands’ claims for special damages that are in issue before the Court. [3] Unite applies for an order that the claims for money relief in the proceedings be struck out (other than costs), or, alternatively, an order that a compliant statement of cla...

9. FAQs

   On this page you'll find answers to some commonly asked questions. More information can be found within the website and in the Homeowners' Guide to the Tribunal. Who can apply to the Tribunal? Why won’t the Tribunal look at Kaikōura claims? Does the Tribunal consider claims involving on-sold properties? Does the Tribunal consider claims involving builders or other parties? What about claims that are with the courts? Where is the Tribunal located? When can claims be filed

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal

10. [2014] NZEmpC 53 NZ Meatworkers Union v Alliance Group Ltd [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...not pursue the claims vigorously after 2006 because they only affected a minority of the Union’s members and because similar issues were then before the courts. [18] Although the substance of the annual holidays provisions did not change, the form of them was tidied up by the removal in the 2008/2009 agreement of the first paragraph of cl 9(g)(ii). Thus, the provision which must be construed and applied in this case is: (g) The provisions of the Holidays Act 2003 and any Act pa...