Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 6 Edwards v Board of Trustees of Bay of Islands College [pdf, 821 KB]

   ELGIN EDWARDS v THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAY OF ISLANDS COLLEGE (FORMERLY CAROL ANDERSON, LIMITED STATUTORY MANAGER OF BAY OF ISLANDS COLLEGE) NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 6 [3 February 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 6 ARC 64/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN ELGIN EDWARDS Plaintiff AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF BAY OF ISLANDS COLLEGE (FORMERLY CAROL

2. EQ v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 175 (27 June 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...maintenance. A dispute arose about the repair invoice. F Ltd agreed to waive the $150.00 call out fee but have placed the balance of $427.50 with debt collectors. 2. EQ wants to cancel the contract and get a full refund of the $3,025.00 paid and requests an order that he not liable to pay the repair invoice of $427.50. 3. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is EQ entitled to cancel the contract and get a refund of $3,025.00? (i) Was the treadmill of acceptable quality? (ii) If...

3. Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements) [2023] NZACC 158 [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...following: • That Mr Easthope only had cover for a left shoulder dislocation in respect of the 1986 accident. Mr Rei suggested that if Mr Easthope wished to obtain cover for additional injuries, he discuss this with his GP who could lodge a formal request for any additional injury diagnosis. • That the requests for a traction machine and mattress had been made under a separate claim and had already been determined by the Corporation. • Mr Easthope needed to complete a form...

4. [2012] NZEmpC 151 Transpacific v Harris & Ors [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...sort of information that each of Messrs Harris and Green received and knew of in the course of their employment for the purpose of justifying cl 7.1. 1 [2012] NZEmpC 141. 2 At [5]. [5] The claims against Smart Environmental Limited are for penalties for being party to the breach by Messrs Harris and Green of their employment agreements and, in particular, cl 7.1. That is a separate issue from the one to be considered next week...

5. Rafiq v Commissioner of Inland Revenue (Costs) [2013] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 39 KB]

   ...for Defendant DATE OF DECISION: 18 September 2013 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COSTS APPLICATION BY DEFENDANT Background [1] These proceedings were heard at Wellington on 11 April 2012. In a decision given on 23 May 2012 Mr Rafiq’s claim was dismissed. The Tribunal determined that: [1.1] All of the information which Inland Revenue refused to disclose in response to Mr Rafiq’s Principle 6 request had been properly and justifiably refused. 2 [1.2] Mr Rafiq clearly...

6. [2010] NZEmpC 21 Industrial Services Nelson Ltd v Stewart [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...direction to serve the statement of claim within seven days. After investigating the matter, once new solicitors were instructed, they filed an application for an order extending the time on 23 December 2009. The new counsel did not have any formal address for service for the defendant. On 24 December 2009 the defendant was apparently sent by email a copy of counsel’s covering letter which listed the documents to be served and asked her to confirm her address for service. As n...

7. Pompey - Whaanga 1C2B1 (2001) 97 Waikato MB 1 (97 W 1) [pdf, 1.7 MB]

   ...of these items and in view of the denials by the applicants I am unable to conclude that they removed Ihem. As to the removal of the nine pine trees the applicants acknowledge that they arranged for this to be done. It was done in response to a request from a neighbour because the trees were encroaching on his property and likely to cause damage to his power lines. In arranging this work the applicants did not consult with the Trust. Miss Nepe for the applicants represented that t...

8. Arthur v The Proprietors of Potikirua Incorporation - Potikirua Incorporation (2019) 225 Waiariki MB 63 (225 WAR 63) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...rerenga a te kēhi nei – The case so far [7] Mr Bidois seeks full indemnity cost on the basis that: (a) The Committee of Management had failed over a period of eight months to give effect to sealed orders for succession despite the applicant’s request. (b) The applicant had exhausted all other avenues prior to lodging her application, including speaking to the Incorporation’s Chairperson personally and having her solicitor produce the relevant regulation. (c) While the Court...

9. SC v RG [2020] NZDT 1560 (4 May 2020) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...regardless of what the renovation debt may have been; I do not need to consider this second issue. Conclusion 17. For the reasons above, Mr and Mrs G must pay $14,105.05 to the entities and in the proportions set out in my order above. Other Information 18. The issuing of this order has been delayed as a result of New Zealand being placed into COVID 19 Level 4 lockdown on Thursday 19 March 2020. 19. I find it reasonable given the lockdown that just over four weeks is a...

10. BS and NE v RB Ltd [2017] NZDT 1524 (26 April 2017) [pdf, 213 KB]

    ...were misled by the reassurances given to them by M that the car was sound, in particular when he emphasised that the car had a current warrant of fitness. It was true that the car had a warrant, but the evidence of the applicants was that this information was given in the context of the discussion that they wanted to travel around the South Island in the car. After the car broke down, their mechanic reported that it was inevitable that the car would break down because it had a patched r...