Search Results

1. LCRO 9/2024 & 12/2024 QB v WF and SY & WF and SY v QB (27 June 2024) [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...is 28 August. [15] On , the employer gave each of the respondents another letter. This one, after confirming disestablishment of their roles and dealing with the non- availability of redeployment, relevantly stated as follows: At our meeting you requested and we agreed to waive the notice period and to allow you to finish on [date 1]. We also agreed that your final pay would be processed on [date 1]. You will be paid out all wages and holiday pay owing up to Friday [date 1], plus 4 w...

2. Soulsby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2024] NZACC 31 [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...February 2024 Held at: Auckland District Court Appearances: J Robinson for the Appellant F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 19 February 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for interest on weekly compensation - s 114(1), backdated weekly compensation – s 105, cl 43, Sch 1, alleged delay, s 134(1)(b), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] These are appeals from the follow...

3. LCRO 162/2018 BQ v XR (29 September 2020) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...his position was better protected and put him less at risk of the terms of the separation being vulnerable to later challenge. [78] I think it reasonable for Mr BQ to have adopted that view. His approach presents as conventional. Mr BQ had formed a view that terms of the earlier s 21 agreement were favourable to Mr XR, and that he thought it prudent to ensure that the terms of a final settlement were properly recorded in a s 21A agreement. His decision to take steps to formalis...

4. T v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 79 (06 August 2015) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN E B T Complainant AND Viveg Lingam Mudaliar Adviser THE NAME AND ANY INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms S Blick, lawyer, MBIE, Auckland. Complainant: In person Adviser: Mr N King, Lawyer, Auckland. Date Issued:...

5. OP & EI v GJ Ltd [2019] NZDT 1305 (14 October 2019) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...with the issues that arose, would not have wanted to buy them for this house (s21; s36). 11. The unusual features of the windows render them unsuitable for the applicants’ property and as a result, the consequences of not being adequately informed are considerable. Are the applicants entitled to a refund? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 12. Where goods are supplied that are not fit for purpose, and that failure is substantial, a consumer is entitled to reject the goods...

6. BT v KG [2020] NZDT 1457 (16 March 2020) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...email from Partridges to BT noted that it was surprised to be told by Rolex that this was not a genuine product. I find it more likely than not that if BT had asked Partridges to examine the watch prior to purchase he would have been given the same information that KG had been given as to its genuineness and value. The date on the valuation KG had was 7 November 2019, which was 5 days before BT agreed to buy the watch. 23. The Tribunal has to consider what relief should be granted.

7. TH & UH v DM & MT [2022] NZDT 262 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...refund to the Buyer the difference between the price received from the new owner (if any) after deduction of any expenses incurred whilst the Dog is in the care of the Breeder.” 2. If the Dog HAS BEEN desexed, then the Buyer will immediately inform the Breeder and provide the contact details of the new owner, and the buyer will ensure that the new owner will abide by the terms and conditions of the contract to the extent that they remain relevant at the time of the rehoming. Did t...

8. ES Ltd v OH & TH [2024] NZDT 214 (28 March 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...identified but, he said, ES Ltd had not been given the opportunity to do so. He provided copies of emails from OH that emphatically stated that he and TH did not want ES Ltd to return to their property. [6] EQ said that he considered the work had been performed according to the scope of works, and that he would have attended to any defects if he had been allowed to do so. He noted that the house was some 70 years old, and that precision was not always possible in placing and securing fit...

9. NM v LK [2023] NZDT 216 (13 April 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...identical except that the report provided by LK had been edited, so that the references made by the vet to lameness had been removed. It was not apparent on the face of the edited report that any changes had been made. [6] NM said that she had informed LK of the nature of her [business] and had made clear her requirement that the horse be healthy. Because the vet report provided to her by LK had been completed only a short time before, NM did not obtain another one. She said she had reli...

10. KU v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 876 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

    ...reasons set out in Clause 9 above, I find it has not been proved that BL’s representation prior to purchase that the [car] had suffered no water damage was false. Did BL advise KU to go ahead and have the vehicle repaired? 12. KU says he kept BL informed about what he was doing, and that BL indicated that T Ltd would pay for the repair. 13. However, BL’s evidence is that he advised KU that the General Manager made decisions about post-sale repairs. BL said that he did not tell...