Search Results

1. Clarken v Carling [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...turn would have directed him to observe the incorrectly executed building work. [107] Mr Probett gave evidence that the approved Plaster Systems detail for the construction of fully clad parapet and handrail walls required a sloping top to be formed and that that detail had been current for 5 years prior to the construction of the Claimants’ dwelling. Mr Probett stated that water is entering the handrail framing through the textured level top surface of the handrail and an incline...

2. 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...

3. Langhorne v ACC [2010] NZACA 11 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...treated the review application lodged under Part 9 of the 1992 Act, as coming under Part 5 of the 2001 Act. [9] This process was upheld and promoted by the Reviewer, and acquiesced to by the Case Manager, despite counsel’s repeated objections and requests to conduct the review under the correct legislation. [10] Through correspondence with Legal Services and the Wellington City branch office, ACC was put on formal notice on 28 February 2008, 4 March 2008, 4 April 2008, 18 Apr...

4. Langhorne v Accident Compensation Corporation [2010] NZACA 11 [pdf, 326 KB]

   ...treated the review application lodged under Part 9 of the 1992 Act, as coming under Part 5 of the 2001 Act. [9] This process was upheld and promoted by the Reviewer, and acquiesced to by the Case Manager, despite counsel’s repeated objections and requests to conduct the review under the correct legislation. [10] Through correspondence with Legal Services and the Wellington City branch office, ACC was put on formal notice on 28 February 2008, 4 March 2008, 4 April 2008, 18 Apr...

5. Thompson v Love [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...Apron Flashing [14] Mr Love admits that the apron flashing terminated behind the exterior cladding but says that he did not install the apron flashing and that he followed proper construction practice. Mr Love says that the apron flashing forms part of the roof, which was installed by Carter Holt Harvey and that Carter Holt Harvey followed accepted trade practice at the time. Mr Love states that, at the time of construction, the apron flashings were not required to turn up at...

6. Lewis & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 13 [pdf, 87 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 13 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6451: NICHOLAS ROMILLY LEWIS AND DIANE HERMA LEWIS AND CHRISTOPHER ELLIOT RICHIE – 18 CAPTAIN EDWARD DANIELL DRIVE, NGAIO ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Nicholas and Diane Lewis and Christopher Ritchi...

7. Marshall & McCardle [2011] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 89 KB]

   1 H[2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 5 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6401: COREY MARSHALL AND KAREN MCCARDLE – 32 MASTERTON ROAD, ROTHESAY BAY ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Corey Marshall and Karen McCardle, as the trustees for the Marshall Family Trust, are the owners...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. QH Ltd v XD Ltd [2022] NZDT 98 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 138 KB]

    ...(‘CCLA’)? • What is payable by XD Ltd, if anything, under the contract? Did XD Ltd accept the goods provided by QH Ltd as per the Sale of Goods provisions in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (‘CCLA’)? 9. As soon as the contract was formed, the boxes became the property of XD Ltd, irrespective of the arrangement to deliver some or all of the boxes at a later date (as per section 146 of the CCLA). 10. Section 170(1)(b) and (c) of the CCLA provides that:- �...