Search Results

1. LCRO 47/2021 BQ v ZG (16 December 2024) [pdf, 665 KB]

   ...transfer to “our trust account” of the funds Firm A held in trust. Firm A requested from Ms ND “… your firm’s undertaking that you will retain the sale proceeds … undisbursed, until resolving of division of relationship property between [the former husband] and [the respondent]”. [13] The exchange is puzzling. Barristers do not operate trust accounts. Ms ND may not have understood this. [14] Ms ND engaged with Firm A regarding the form of undertaking required. On...

2. Carey Clan Trust v Still [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...not CGAF. 20. CGAF say that the inspection was a visual inspection (not invasive) as was the invariable practice for final inspections. 21. CGAF drew attention to the time period between the issuing of the building consent in June 1999 and the request by the Council for a final inspection in March 2007. They said that in making the request the Council had an obligation to specify the ambit and extent of the final inspection. They were clearly on notice as they asked that particula...

3. [2025] NZLVT 019 – Flath v Minister for Land Information (9 May 2025) [pdf, 505 KB]

   ...discretion the claimant should bear their own costs or a proportion of them and they should pay the costs of the respondent or a proportion of them. In this regard special reasons and reasonableness are relevant factors. The suggestion that s 90(2) forms a mandatory requirement that there can be no payment to the claimant and must be the payment of all the reasonable costs of the respondent is not supported by any other authority. Gavigan was clear that even where the grounds are...

4. KQ & OS v TN Ltd [2024] NZDT 244 (25 March 2024) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...basis for such an award given that there has been no breach of the contract by KQ and OS in this case. 40. For these reasons the counterclaim is dismissed. Referee: L Trevelyan Date: 25 March 2024 Page 6 of 6 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...

5. BB v NC [2024] NZDT 127 (16 April 2024) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...because of the leaking that resulted from the faulty drainage system that had previously been installed. [22] Thus, NC must pay BB $28,874.06. Referee: C Hawes Date: 16 April 2024 Page 5 of 5 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...

6. TT v BB Ltd [2022] NZDT 152 (13 September 2022) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...Accordingly, the claim for declaration of nonliability for fees claimed by the respondent, including [accounting software] fees, is granted. Referee: P McKinstry Date: 13 September 2022 Page 2 of 2 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...

7. Justice Sector Legal Aid forecast 2014 to 2019 [pdf, 644 KB]

   ...2014 © Crown Copyright ISSN 1179-1446 (online) Published by the Ministry of Justice Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and fully excludes

8. Allan v Christchurch City Council [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...relates to the deformation of diverter flashings. The Council’s position is that the building was fortunate that there were diverter flashings, as they were not commonly seen at that time. Unfortunately, these diverter flashings were improperly formed and therefore failed to carry out the task that they were designed to do. [30] The first respondent’s first line of defence was that there was no defect in the diverted flashings. This has already been rejected in the fi...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 213 Hixon v Campbell and Ors substantive [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...employee records of a number of AHV’s employees to him. 1 Hixon (Labour Inspector) v Campbell [2014] NZERA Christchurch 4. 2 28 April 2014. These included copies of job application forms, employment agreements, and tax forms. Mrs Campbell also provided Mr Hixon with a summary of wages and deductions in respect of individual employees. Whilst these records were incomplete, he was able to compile a schedule of tool allow...

10. DQ v Z Ltd [2021] NZDT 1634 (2 July 2021) [pdf, 228 KB]

    ...for inspection. They did not communicate with or consult with DQ over its disposal or tell him prior that they may potentially dispose of it after the inspection. 18. Further I do not accept that Z Ltd’s collection of the item for inspection formed part of the original contract of carriage. That carriage was at an end once the toilet was delivered to DQ. Therefore Z Ltd’s terms and conditions did not apply beyond that time. 19. The tort of conversion occurs when one party inte...