11129 items matching your search terms
...justified. 1 She challenged that determination. 2 The plaintiff filed a further statement of problem in the Authority on 16 May 2012, alleging various breaches on the part of the defendant during her employment. The Authority concluded that these claims were time barred, and accordingly dismissed them. 3 1 Milne v Air New Zealand Ltd [2011] NZERA Auckland 45. 2 ARC 17/11, Milne v Air New Zealand Ltd. 3 Milne v Air New Zeal...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-100-000018 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 25 BETWEEN NOEL DEAN AND DYMPNA DUNWORTH Claimants AND NEIL MCLACHLAN First Respondent AND DVK ROOFING AND WATERPROOFING CO LIMITED Second Respondent Hearing: 15 July 2010 Decision: 21 July 2010 DETERMINATION AS TO SERVICE Adjudicator: P A McConnell Page | 2 INTRODUCTION [1] The second respondent in this claim, DVK Roofing and Waterproofing Co Limit...
...November 2024 Held at: Wellington by AVL Appearances: S Winter for the Appellant P McBride for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 6 December 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claims process - s 134(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 28 February 2023. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review for alleged unreasonable...
...plaintiff elicit from the defendant a very helpful first draft of the letter of support, she proceeded to request amendments with a view to strengthening the terms of the defendant’s support for her. [64] Eighth, on the defendant providing the requested amended draft, the plaintiff asserts she did not use the reference “because amongst other things it was a dishonest account of our relationship”. We do not believe the plaintiff. Her response dated 2 February 2008 to the first dra...
...granted. It is also appropriate that the names of SkyCity employees and managers not be published and throughout this judgment they are referred to by their position designation at the time of the dismissal. Pleadings [5] The statement of claim alleges that the dismissal was procedurally and substantively unjustified and that what SkyCity did and how it acted towards Mr Hayashi were not what a fair and reasonable employer could have done in all the circumstances. [6] The...
...have had to have been canvassed. [10] In my judgment of 24 June 2011 I noted, for example, that there were 675 pages of “will say” statements on behalf of two chartered accounts and 598 pages in the two briefs of evidence of a forensic information technology analyst and accountant, filed on behalf of the plaintiff. There was considerable more material than that for counsel for the defendant to peruse. [11] Although not addressed in the memorandum, because of presumably the...
...meaningful and sensible attempts to settle the claim. 9. The claimants then replied by stating that the second respondent misstates factual events and that essentially there is nothing in Mrs Kerkin’s response to deflect the claimants’ request that the Tribunal order an award of costs under section 91. 10. The claimants’ submissions expand on their allegation that Mrs Kerkin’s defence to the liability for breach of the vendor warranty claim lacked substantial...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-101-000030 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 67 BETWEEN KAREN & IAN O’CONNOR Claimants AND MACDEE MCLENNAN CONSTRUCTION LIMITED First Respondent AND DUNCAN MCLENNAN Second Respondent AND PORIRUA CITY COUNCIL Third Respondent AND G KNOL Fourth Respondent Hearing: 23 June 2011 Appearances: P Robertson for the claimant Reeves for the first and second respondent P Robertson for the third respondent G Knol
...of Kiwi, the New Zealand Dairy Group and the NZ Dairy Board. [10] These allegations are all denied by the defendant. [11] It is common ground that on 16 October 2001 Kiwi, together with the NZ Dairy Group, amalgamated and the defendant was formed pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act 1993 and the Dairy Industrial Restructuring Act 2001. The NZ Dairy Board became a subsidiary of the defendant. [12] It may be broadly stated that documents which the plaintiff now seeks...
...provisions then reinforce the position of buyer beware in private sales, except in limited circumstances. 8. However, there is relief available for a buyer of a good in a private sale when a misrepresentation is made in the process of the contract being formed. Under section 35 of the CCLA when someone has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, that person is entitled to damages as if the representation were a term of the contract that...