Search Results

1. Nottingham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Social Rehabilitation) [2022] NZACC 212 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Respondent Hearing: 14 November 2022 Held at: Hamilton/Kirikirioa Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented J Sumner for the respondent Judgment: 18 November 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Alleged delay and requested funding for social rehabilitation ss 134(1), 79 and 84, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 26 July 2021. The Reviewer dismissed Mr Nottingham’s revie...

2. TS v IS [2022] NZDT 65 (31 May 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...4. Under the law of contract parties are bound by the terms and conditions they have agreed to at the time the contract is made. Although a contract may be varied by agreement, a party cannot unilaterally impose terms after the contract has been formed. 5. The parties agreed that TS would purchase the car immediately after he had test driven it. At that time there was no discussion of an AA inspection or any other conditions that needed to be fulfilled before the contract became unc

3. [2022] NZACC 100–Phillips v ACC (25 May 2022) [pdf, 343 KB]

   ...them and the model to succeed. [28] She told the Court that in response, her manager replied by email advising her a Human Resource Representative would have answers to her questions by the end of the week. Later in the week, she said her manager requested that she attend a face to face meeting with her and the HR Representative. [29] She says that although the meeting was in response to her personal agreement, she was not offered the opportunity of having a support person with h...

4. [2011] NZEmpC 120 Bourne, Conrad, Turner and NZ Merchant Service Guild Industrial Union of Workers Inc v Real Journeys Ltd [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...4 [2007] ERNZ 271. 5 At [43]. a statutory requirement to provide a properly particularised statement of claim. In that sense, it reinforces the general requirement that a statement of claim should fully, fairly and clearly inform the Court and the defendant of the nature and details of the claim, the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is sought. 6 While proper pleadings play a very important part in ensuring that proceedings are decided fairly and econo...

5. Auckland Standards Committee v Sorensen [2011] NZLCDT 10 [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...unlawfulness and did not knowingly facilitate an unlawful scheme is not supported by the evidence. 14 At paragraph 30 15 Ibid, lines 4 - 6 10 46. Counsel for the Standards Committee is requested to lodge submissions on penalty and costs within 3 weeks of delivery of this decision, with service on counsel for Mr Sorensen at that time. 47. Counsel for Mr Sorensen is requested to lodge submissions in reply within 3 weeks...

6. Greive v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2024] NZACC 156 (30 September 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...surveillance ultrasound. He appeared to have been lost to follow up during COVID and I had arranged as part of our management of overdue follow-up to repeat ultrasound scan of his left axilla which he had this morning with no features of concern. I have requested a further ultrasound performed for three months’ time ... He has no concerns and there is no evidence of locoregional occurrence in his left chest wall or axillary or supraclavicular region. To the right of the midline...

7. TC & QC v FT & TT [2025] NZDT 71 (6 March 2025) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...goods and there is no warranty regarding the quality of the goods or their fitness for purpose. The rule of Caveat Emptor means that a seller in private contractual negotiations is generally under no obligation to ensure that the buyer is fully informed about the transaction, so he or she need not disclose all material facts, so silence will not usually amount to a misrepresentation. 7. However, when a party makes pre-contractual representations about the goods to another party, they

8. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...Kent and [the RN] have differing recollections of whether a cross- checking procedure occurred. 3. Dr Kent stated that he stopped and took some time to consider what to do, before talking to Mrs Ashworth about it. Dr Kent told HDC that he then informed Mrs Ashworth of the options available to her, and believed he obtained her consent to proceed with the KAMRA inlay in her left eye. Dr Kent then inserted the KAMRA inlay into her left eye. [8] The Commissioner found Dr Kent breached the...

9. Heath v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 20 [pdf, 193 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000064 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 20 BETWEEN GLEN JOSEPH HEATH AND MICHELLE SUZETTE HEATH Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL (formerly known as NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL) First Respondent AND LYNETTE GAY HART (NEE BOLTE) Second Respondent AND DAVID GRAHAM DELAMARE (Removed) Third Respondent AND THORNE DWYER STRUCTURES LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND ROBERT LESLEY REID Fifth Respondent AND JULIAN MATTHEW WOUL

10. [2020] NZEmpC 46 JCE v The Department of Corrections [pdf, 321 KB]

    ...unjustified action causing disadvantage in his employment, unjustified dismissal, and breach of contract for failing to provide a safe workplace. In response the department maintained it had acted as a fair and reasonable employer and denied the claims. [3] The Authority held that the department breached contractual and statutory duties owed to the plaintiff and acted in an unjustified way causing him disadvantage in his employment by failing to take reasonably practicable step...