Search Results

1. Due North Trust v Gardner [2011] NZWHT Auckland 64 [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...negligence.10 This has little applicability to the present case. [91] The Council also relies on the obiter dicta of Tipping J in the Supreme Court judgement in Byron Avenue and Sunset Terraces.11 This is to the effect that if a purchaser fails to request a LIM which would have given notice of actual or potential problems, rather than just constituting contributory negligence at a high level, it may break the chain of causation from the Council’s negligence at the inspectio...

2. Abernethy v Coughlan [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...other evidence was taken as read, as follows: • Mrs Abernethy, claimant, gave evidence; • Mr Abernethy’s written evidence was taken as read; • Mr Kime, their property manager, gave evidence; 7 • The evidence of Mr Cartwright, former council officer, a witness for the claimants, was taken as read; • Mr Beazley, fifth respondent, gave evidence; • Mr Coughlan, first respondent, gave evidence; and • Mr Higham, a witness for the third respondent, North Shore...

3. Landon v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 12 [pdf, 78 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000109 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 12 BETWEEN JASON GLEN LANDON AND SHARON MARY PEACE Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND DMITRI AND ANNA LECHTCHINSKI Second Respondents AND GRAHAM MURRAY (Struck Out) Third Respondent AND ALAN MARK MATTHEWS Fourth Respondent AND KEITH BERNARD MIDDLETON Fifth Respondent AND IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Sixth Respondent COSTS DETERMINATI

4. Emet v New Zealand Transport Agency 2023 NZHRRT 41 [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...[7] In early July 2015 NZTA agreed to consider Mr Emet remaining as a tenant, subject to the entry into a standard periodic tenancy at market rental and the relevant checks being done. For this purpose, NZTA gave Mr Emet a pre-tenancy application form to complete, that amongst other things requested details of referees who would provide a reference about credit worthiness, and his consent to a credit check. A few weeks later NZTA sent Mr Emet’s and his ex-wife’s solicitor a proposed...

5. Bell v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 66 [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...hospital. The orthopaedic surgeon involved, Mr Bevan, recorded the operation as follows: 1. Right gastrocnemius lengthening; 2. Left tendo achilles lengthening, HOKE; 3. First, second, third tarsometatarsal joint fusion; 4. Lateral navicular cuneiform fusion; 5. Proximal tibial bone graft. [6] Initial post-surgery reports indicated that the appellant was making good progress. However, on 3 December 2018, after seeing the appellant in clinic, Dr Ahuja, Orthopaedic Registrar,...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 15 Downer NZ Ltd v Livingstone [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...receiving a predictable sum each month. It is this process which has partially led to the present dispute. [5] When Mr Livingstone left employment on 19 September 2017, Downer calculated his final pay for the broken month. I will deal with the formula it used to calculate this payment shortly. Mr Livingstone did not agree with the basis of calculation for several reasons and commenced a wage arrears claim before the Authority. The determination of the Authority found in favour o...

7. Mateeva v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings) [2024] NZHRRT 39 [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...complaint further. That notice triggered the six-month time period within which Ms Mateeva was required to commence proceedings in the Tribunal.3 The Commissioner’s notice stated as follows: Under the Privacy Act 2020, if you wish to take a claim about this issue to the Human Rights Review Tribunal you must file your claim in the Tribunal within six months of today’s date. This is a strict timeframe. The Tribunal can only extend the time beyond this if it finds “exceptiona...

8. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...Date of Decision: 21 September 2009 Background In an Interim Determination dated 30 April 2009, the Tribunal held that the Wellington City Council, Mr Debney and Wadestown Developments Ltd (Wadestown) were jointly and severally liable to the claimants for the sum of $449,807. Those parties were invited to provide particulars of their claim for contribution against the tenth respondent, Mr Nachum who declined all opportunities to take part in the Tribunal process. This determinatio...

9. O'Brien v Accident Compensation Corporation (Challenge to impairment assessment) [2024] NZACC 120 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...when a decision has been made can there be a right of review and if no right of review exists then s133(5) has no application ... The substance [of the communication in question] has to be analysed…. [47] … merely administrative issues and requests, do not amount to a ‘decision’ within the meaning of s.6 of the legislation. Whether a ‘decision’ has been made needs to be determined in the factual context and circumstances. Discussion [40] Ms Aubrey, for Mr O’Brien...

10. Auckland Standards Committee v Comeskey [2010] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 121 KB]

    ...facts: 30.1 Mr Comeskey had raised the issue of calling a milk powder expert with the trial Judge in Chambers during the course of cross-examination of Crown witnesses. 30.2 The backpack and scales were brought to Court during the trial at the request of Mr Comeskey so he could examine them. This was prior to Detective McKay giving evidence. Accordingly Mr Comeskey knew the backpack was at the Court and was available. 30.3 When Detective McKay gave evidence about which Mr...