Search Results

1. LCRO 207/2015 CA v BE (21 August 2018) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...that are first raised at the review stage of the proceedings. The Parties’ Arguments [34] Mr ZK identified Mrs CA’s main concern, (described by him as her “highest point of objection”) as concern that Mr BE had refused to comply with request to ensure that his client’s complaints were kept confidential. As this argument was advanced, it appeared to be the case that it was being suggested that Mr BE had given indication of his intention to interview potential witnesses...

2. Zhang & Cao v Chen [2018] NZIACDT 11 (5 April 2018) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...in the invidious position of making large investments into companies where a person nominated by the adviser was the sole director. The complainant apparently did not meet the sole director, and was not provided with his contact details when requested. His address registered with the Companies Office was the same as the adviser’s address disclosed in a document before the Tribunal. Fees purportedly for the services of that director were allegedly paid to the director’s moth...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 35 Coy v Commissioner of Police [pdf, 592 KB]

   ...station [143] Constructive dismissal? [159] Application of s 122 Employment Relations Act 2000 [206] An observation [214] Remedies for unjustified disadvantages [216] Costs [217] Introduction [1] The issues in this proceeding between a former police officer and the Commissioner of Police as her employer, include:  whether the Commissioner disadvantaged Christine Coy unjustifiably in her employment; and  whether Ms Coy was dismissed constructively;  if so, whet...

4. AY Ltd v ZB Ltd [2014] NZDT 676 (26 September 2014) [pdf, 16 KB]

   ...and that all components were made on a CNC machine. [9] The most important and relevant of all the evidence is that ZB Limited themselves took over the construction of the kitset for AY Limited’s client as a result of the dispute, after various forms of assistance were offered to AY Limited and the dispute could not be resolved. The work has recently been completed and fully signed off by Council without there having been any changes to the components of the kitset originally suppl...

5. MSC v Scholes [2013] NZIACDT 71 (25 November 2013) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...appropriate. In addition, she failed to initiate the professional engagement and document her instructions in accordance with the Code of Conduct. [5] The Tribunal gave the parties the opportunity to address the Tribunal in relation to sanctions. It also requested that the Registrar provide information regarding the cost of investigating the complaint. [6] In the course of responding, both parties revisited factual matters. [7] This present decision addresses two issues: [7.1] The p...

6. MacDonald v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury/Costs on Review) [2023] NZACC 175 [pdf, 339 KB]

   ...Injury, Causation s 26; Costs on Review s 148 Accident Compensation Act 2001] ___________________________________________________________________________ [1] In respect of appeal ACR 306/21, three issues are identified: (a) Cover in relation to a claimed injury, namely a below knee amputation (right leg). This is claimed to the be the consequence of an insect bite, but said to have been sustained after onset of significant symptoms of substantial vascular disease; (b) Provision o...

7. What happens next

   ...claim Once we receive your notice of claim, we’ll send you an acknowledgement and a receipt for your application fee. Phone conference & directions hearing The Authority may hold a phone conference before the hearing to make sure everyone has the information they need. It may also arrange a directions hearing to ensure progress is being made on the claim. The hearing Time & place At least 10 days before your case is due to be heard, we’ll tell you the day and time of your hearing. H...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Taxation and Charities Review Authority >
   3. Tax Disputes

8. C Ltd v KQ [2022] NZDT 1 (14 March 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...a house she was selling. Unfortunately goods supplied for the purpose were stolen during the staging. C LTD lodged a claim with their insurer. The insurance payment to C LTD was $15,941.92 after the deduction of the $2,500.00 excess. C LTD requested KQ to pay the excess, but she declined. The claim is for the $2,500.00 excess to be paid by KQ. 2. C LTD provided a quote for the staging contract and is relying on the ‘Terms’ supplied with that quote. The last term states...

9. TN v PO Ltd [2023] NZDT 570 (16 November 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...on the companies’ genuine website alerting users to the fraudulent use of the company names on [social media] by person/s unknown. 3. The only evidence about who TN might actually have been dealing with through [online marketplace] is in the form of a photograph sent to TN by the seller, of a man holding his photo ID drivers’ license next to his face. The man on the drivers’ license and the man in the photograph sent with the license appear to be the same person, but of course it...

10. Clark v Trustees of Poukawa 9G and others trust (2011) 6 Takitimu MB 285 (6 TKT 285) [pdf, 136 KB]

    ...expenses and copies of legal and accounting advice. The trustees did not provide this information. [47] The general courts have long held that a trustee is not generally obliged to volunteer documents to beneficiaries. However, if a beneficiary requests it, the trustee, in most cases, must provide trust documents to the beneficiary and an accounting in respect of it. 14 [48] The leading New Zealand authority on what constitutes „trust documents‟ is Manukau City Council v...