Search Results

1. Notman v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACA 01 [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...the opportunity to monitor the claimed entitlement over more than 35 years ([2015] NZACC 237 at [28]). [46] At the same time, the Authority was reminded of the District Court’s line of cases requiring careful scrutiny of later medical opinion formed without the benefit of contemporaneous examination and diagnosis. [47] Mr Notman does not have any other medical evidence, particularly evidence contemporary with the relevant period from 1975 to 1992, supporting his claim to have...

2. Ngati Rangitihi Claims Settlement Bill [PDF, 902 KB]

   ...of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable to ss 20 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Acts Whether right to bring civil proceedings in s 27(3) at issue 8. 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. 9. This clause might be seen to raise an issue of compliance with s 27(3) of the Bill of Rights Act, namely the right to bring civ...

3. QC Ltd (in liquidation) v WD Ltd [2020] NZDT 1326 (4 August 2020) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...QCL the sum of $800.00. As this sum if GST inclusive, QCL is requested to issue a fresh or amended invoice for GST purposes. Referee: J Robertshawe Date: 4 August 2020 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 4 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 r...

4. Hooker v Director-General of the Department of Conservation (2012) 38 Taitokerau MB 219 (38 TTK 219) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...that rule 14(2)(b) of the Māori Land Court Rules 1994 requires applications by which payment of a sum of a money is required to be specifically pleaded. This was not done and nor were any details relating to damages addressed in evidence. The request for monetary damages should not, he submitted, be taken any further. [15] Counsel also contended that, if the Court were minded to award damages, which were opposed, they should be nominal only and not exceed three figures given the sp...

5. 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...

6. 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:...

7. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...Room Deck – Waterproof Membrane 4.4.1 The drawings show that this deck was to be constructed with timber joists, spanning from a wall plate fixed to the external wall of the house to a double beam on timber posts. The deck surface was to be formed by 18 mm plywood with a waterproof membrane dressed up 150 mm on all sides. This is what the designer wanted, although waterproofing would not be a requirement of the Building Code. 4.4.2 The deck has been tiled with large reconst...

8. 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...

9. 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.

10. 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...