Search Results

1. BS v KC & DC [2024] NZDT 489 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 243 KB]

   ...5. The parties have each raised issues about the notices served by the other in this claim. 6. KC and DC say that the notices served by BS on 5 and 12 December 2023 were not valid. They say the first valid notice (which included all of the information required by the FA) was received by them on 14 December 2023. They say that the 21 day period for serving a cross notice expired on 4 January 2024, but that BS filed this claim on 3 January 2024. They suggest this means the claim is in...

2. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Russell [pdf, 30 KB]

   Claim No: 1240 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Auckland City Council (as assignee) Claimant And Mark Brian Russell Respondent Final Determination 14 February 2006 1. Index Para No Heading Page 1. Index 1 2. Summary of Determination 1 3. Quantification 1 2. Summary of Determination 2.1 In the Partial Determination dated 21 September 2005 I found that the Aucklan...

3. BORA Ngāti Manuhiri Claims Settlement Bill [pdf, 286 KB]

   ...with arts 14 and 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which are comparable to ss 20 and 27(2) of the Bill of Rights Act [6]. Exclusion of remedy of compensation/Crown Forest Assets Act 1989 10. Clause 22(3) excludes any form of monetary compensation as a remedy for any failure of the Crown to comply with a protocol under Part 2 of the Bill. Clause 104(2) prevents any court or tribunal from doing or omitting to do anything, between the date of settlement and t...

4. Smith v McCallum and Ross (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 47 [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...was considerable delay before a case management teleconference was able to be convened. On 1 June 2018, the Secretary emailed Ms Gordon about arrangements for the conference. Ms Gordon replied advising that she was no longer acting for Mr Smith and requested that the Secretary contact his new representative, Kevin Murray. [6] On 11 June 2018, Mr Murray advised the Secretary that he had attempted to contact Mr Smith via telephone and email but had had no response. On 12 June 2018, the Se...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 27 Taylor v Milburn Lime Ltd [pdf, 76 KB]

   ...correct that the hearing was adjourned twice but the second adjournment was totally unavoidable. In respect of the first adjournment, I fixed costs at the time. [8] The defendant’s reluctance to settle is unsurprising given that the plaintiff’s claim had been entirely rejected by the Authority. [9] Other than to make those points, Mr Beck has provided no material to assist me in deciding what costs it was reasonable for the plaintiff to have incurred. In particular, I have n...

6. [2007] NZEmpC AC 15/07 Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...seeks that the proceedings be stayed until such time as the order for costs, earlier made by the Employment Relations Authority in a determination dated 8 March 2005, has been complied with by the plaintiff. As a further alternative the defendant requests a stay on condition that the plaintiff pay the amount of the costs order into Court. [2] The grounds for the application are that there is reason to believe that the plaintiff will be unable to meet the costs of the defendant if...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 182 Fletcher v Sharp Studhope Lawyers [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...minute dated 13 January 2014 the Authority member required STL to provide the Authority with an unredacted version of the contested documentation in order to assist her in determining whether it was relevant to Mr Fletcher’s personal grievance claims. STL complied with the request. By minute dated 4 February 2014 the Authority declined to order full disclosure. Mr Fletcher filed a challenge. STL applied to strike out the challenge, primarily on the basis that it is precluded by...

8. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Irwin [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...against him personally. The Council, however, took a different view and sought to have Mr Brentnall remain in the proceeding and that matter was duly dealt with. For Mr Brentnall it is now argued that it was only because of the Council's request that Mr Brentnall remain personally as a respondent that that occurred at the time and that, but for that intervention by the Council, Mr Brentnall would have been struck out as a respondent. That does not necessarily follow. The...

9. XL v FJ [2021] NZDT 1618 (22 June 2021) [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...need to consider and evaluate all the evidence presented to me, including any oral evidence given at the hearing. I must weigh up this evidence to decide what is more likely than not. I would like to assure the parties that all the evidence and information presented has been considered, but this order refers only to the essential evidence and information that I consider material to the issues and it is not intended to be a full record of the hearings or of the evidence and information pres...

10. Dassanayake v Manukau City Council [2010] NZWHT Auckland 18 [pdf, 96 KB]

    IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000012 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 18 BETWEEN WAJIRA KUMARA DASSANAYAKE AND KUMUDIKA PRIYANTHI DASSANAYAKE Claimants AND MANUKAU CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND D MOORE Second Respondent AND PETER YAU Third Respondent AND STEVE O’LEARY Fourth Respondent Decision: 24 June 2010 COSTS DETERMINATION Adjudicator: K D Kilgour Application by First Respondent for Costs following Determination o