Search Results

1. NO & NTO v Hakaoro [2013] NZIACDT 44 (01 August 2013) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...have lunch with officials, whereby the officials would disclose lists of persons unlawfully in New Zealand and Mr Hakaoro would instruct them to delete particular names. Third visit to Mr Hakaoro [29] On 27 September 2011, the complainants were requested to return to Mr Hakaoro’s office. They did so, and were told: [29.1] To produce birth certificates for their two children born outside New Zealand. [29.2] That Mr Hakaoro would get funds from the New Zealand government to help tho...

2. [2021] NZACC 94 - Smith v ACC (1 July 2021) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...summary of this. We’ve been unable to establish a causal link between your accident on 20/08/2015 and the condition which is to be treated, which means that we’re unable to cover this condition and we/re unable to approve your specialist’s request to pay for your surgery. [3] The decision concerns the initial request for funding filed by Mr Swan, orthopaedic surgeon relating to the 20215 accident. Subsequently, Mr Swan filed an amended request for funding with a chang...

3. QQ v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 741 (2 October 2024) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...Page 2 of 5 9. A contract may be defined as a legally binding agreement or a promise or set of promises between two or more parties that the law will enforce. 10. SE representing R Ltd brought the Tribunal’s attention to the registration form signed by QQ when he checked in. He pointed to a clause that dealt with guests having to leave at 2100hrs, that the property was not a party house and there was to be no excessive noise. A stated security call out fee of $250.00 would be im...

4. 2018 NZSSAA 007 (31 January 2018) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...the police handed over their records to the Ministry, and the Ministry failed to disclose that they hold that material. However, the Ministry says that it received no such material and, instead, the Police only provided a very modest amount of information, which has minimal importance in relation to the appeals. The appellants adjusted their position during the hearing to accept that potentially the police may still have the documents. Either way, the appellants say they do not have...

5. LCRO 100/2019 & 168/2019 Company A Limited v WC and VB (30 April 2020) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...fees. Mr WC [9] Mr WC says that letters of engagement are routinely sent out for every file opened, and that those refer clients to the terms of engagement on the firm’s website. Mr WC provided copies of emails sent by Mr TG’s assistants requesting urgent responses from Mr WC at various times in early 2017. He does not accept that the fees were unfair or unreasonable. 4 [10] The Committee was satisfied Mr WC had provided the information required by the rules, and did n...

6. UI Ltd & IC Ltd v JU Ltd & UT Ltd [2020] NZDT 1463 (14 July 2020) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...not penetrate the wood and therefore would not be effective. (b) I am satisfied that there is a real risk that further beetles will exit the boards and cause damage and the only way of avoiding this is to replace the floor. Given the lack of information available about the Beetle, it is not known whether the Beetle can lay dormant before emerging as an adult and it is unfair for UI, as the customer, to take on the risk that the adult beetles will continue to emerge and damage the Timber...

7. Adams v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work Related Gradual Process Injury) [2023] NZACC 013 [pdf, 452 KB]

   ...The appellant, Warren Adams was employed as a meat processing worker by the second respondent (Silver Fern Farms) for some twenty-eight years. He challenges the decision of Work Aon, the accredited agent of Silver Fern Farms, which declined his claim for cover for lumbar spondylosis as a work-related gradual process injury. [2] Mr McBride informed the Court that following review of the submissions of the parties and the surrounding evidence, the Corporation would abide the decision o...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 95 Strachan v Moodie [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...legal practice was not as it had been portrayed to her by Mr Moodie. Ms Strachan came to doubt increasingly what she considered had been Mr Moodie’s assurances that his practice was in the nature of a retirement hobby and that the work was performed for selected clients on a pro bono basis, that is for no professional fees. [26] It is not determinative of these proceedings whether Ms Strachan’s beliefs were well founded. However, it is clear that whatever Mr Moodie may or may...

9. Livingstone v Animal Health Board — Lake Rotoaira Forest Lands (2009) 245 Aotea MB 124 (245 AOT 124) [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...consideration are whether it is still appropriate to grant an injunction as sought, whether the Board has acted in contempt and whether costs are now properly payable. Background [4] By application received on 24 July 2009 the Animal Health Board requested the Registrar to convene meetings of beneficial owners for Mangahouhou 1, Oraukura 1, Waihi Kahakaharoa 8A, 8B and Waipapa 2B 2A. The purpose of the proposed meetings was to consult with the owners about a proposed 1080 drop. [...

10. Cooper v Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Ltd (Pre-Trial Admissibility Ruling) [2018] NZHRRT 53 [pdf, 3.8 MB]

    ...allow Hamilton Pharmacy an opportunity to produce additional evidence. [15.4] The Tribunal is not bound by the same rules of evidence as a court. [16] In summary, Mr Cooper submits the evidence is the best available evidence of this aspect of his claim. To deny him the ability to have the evidence heard (and tested) would cause him substantial prejudice as it forms the foundation of a significant part of his claim. The evidence is relevant, not hearsay and Hamilton Pharmacy is already p...