Search Results

1. [2019] NZSSAA 33 (16 May 2019) [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...receive $1,400 per week for board. She accepted that the Authority does not have jurisdiction to award interest on the arrears that have been paid by the Ministry, or to award damages to the appellant. [9] The parties agreed that the Ministry’s request in its report for the appellant’s costs for the period from 1 May 2019 to 1 May 2020 in relation to Disability Allowance and Special Benefit was not a matter over which the Authority has jurisdiction, because it is a decision on f...

2. NS v T Ltd [2021] NZDT 1593 (23 June 2021) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...whether and to what extent he might have a claim. Were T Ltd’s services fit for the purpose? 8. Section 29 of the CGA provides that services must be reasonably fit for any purpose the consumer makes known to the supplier before the contract is formed, unless the circumstances show that the consumer does not rely on the supplier's skill or judgment, or it would be unreasonable for the consumer to do so. 9. T Ltd submitted that it was not obvious what was causing the problem, so...

3. W Ltd v Z Ltd [2024] NZDT 251 (19 March 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 251 APPLICANT W Ltd RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay $8,610.17 to W Ltd before 19 April 2024. Reasons 1. Z Ltd approached W Ltd regarding having a large format digital billboard placed on its premises at [location]. 2. On 21 June 2023 W Ltd provided to Z Ltd, by email, the estimated costs for gaining resource consent. UV for Z Ltd responded, by email, ‘yes please proceed the application’....

4. T Ltd v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 735 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...December 2022 T Ltd issued Invoice 0217 for $19,875.67 but says H Ltd has not paid it for this work. 2. H Ltd denies liability saying it has been caught up in unusual circumstances. In February 2022, T Ltd identified and notified H Ltd that its former employee Mr U had apparently altered invoicing arrangements directly with H Ltd, directing H Ltd to pay another company and a different bank account. H Ltd says it complied with the request made by Mr U and paid Mr U’s business for t...

5. LN v SU & Ors [2024] NZDT 376 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Which of the respondents are liable under the contract? 10. Parties to a contract are bound by the terms agreed and are liable for any breaches of or failures to comply with their obligations under the contract. If at the time the contract is formed a party does not disclose that he or she is acting on behalf of someone else, that person will be personally liable under the contract. 11. At the hearing LN explained that the contact details for advertisement she found on [social m...

6. [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...

7. 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...

8. [2007] NZEmpC WC 20A/07 Gaskin v Grenside [pdf, 32 KB]

   ...which does not appear to impose any such specific obligations. Discussion [20] A settlement made in terms of s149 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 requires that the mediator, before signing the agreed terms of settlement at the request of the parties, must explain to the parties that the terms are final and binding on and enforceable by them. The terms may not be cancelled under s7 of the Contractual Remedies Act 1979 and, except for enforcement purposes, no party...

9. ACF v ZXY [2013] NZDT 149 (27 June 2013) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...a risk he was releasing the capsules too soon. That this is so is established by the demonstration he gave early in the day, and his several other reminders to CK during the day. As the owner of the stock, and ZXY’s customer, LR could have requested that CK stop administering the capsules, or that the operation be stopped altogether. He states that he did not take this step because he was not aware of the dangers of releasing the capsules too soon. He had thought that the capsul...

10. [2023] NZEmpC 76 McMillan v Resque Corporation 20/20 Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

    ...of the defendant company’s property, interest on the money outstanding in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and costs. [11] This morning Mr Johnston explained that the only sanction pursued at this hearing is a fine. A request was made, however, to preserve the application for sequestration if the Authority’s order remains unsatisfied. That request is dealt with later. [12] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer...