Search Results

1. Rātima v Sullivan - Tataraakina C Trust (2017) 64 Tākitimu MB 121 (64 TKT 121) [pdf, 874 KB]

   ...further orders and charged against the former trustees to be repaid in full, or as the Court should otherwise determine. [25] Ms Bennett then argued that the former trustees failed to provide full details of payments made to them, despite repeated requests from counsel and the Court. Counsel contended that the trustees were notified of the circumstances in which fees could be paid to them, but ignored that advice and continued to receive fees for trust business, even throughout the...

2. [2021] NZACC 100 – Tutakangahau v ACC (16 July 2021) [pdf, 447 KB]

   ...I note that ACC received further evidence in its decision of 28 November 2016, declining to fund a car. However ACC has largely relied on the same evidence it had to hand at the time of the motor vehicle decision, and I do not see the new information as shifting the balance of evidence. Rather I am persuaded that the evidence available does not support Ms Tutakangahau as having suffered peripheral neuropathy (bilateral leg chronic regional pain syndrome/neuropathy after rhabdomy...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 234 Gazeley v Oceania Group (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 320 KB]

   ...determination was later stayed by the Court. 3 [6] Mrs Gazeley filed challenges to the determinations. She sought a de novo hearing. She had also previously applied unsuccessfully for interim reinstatement. 4 The pleadings [7] The final form of pleadings consists of an amended statement of claim dated 3 May 2013 and a statement of defence to amended statement of claim dated 31 May 2013. The statement of claim is a substantial document necessitating detailed pleadings in...

4. [2020] NZEmpC 182 FVB v XEY [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...for defendant T Oldfield, counsel for intervener Judgment: 5 November 2020 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE J HOLDEN [1] In November 2019 the defendant lodged a claim with the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). The defendant claims they were sexually harassed by the plaintiff, who is their colleague. Their claim in the Authority is a personal grievance against their employer, the intervener, and seeks various remedies against it. They also seek a penalty again...

5. FQQ Ltd v TJ [2017] NZDT 1044 (11 April 2017) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...because he knew Mr YN had no money. Mr TJ, in giving an example, said he had noticed that when Mr YN first started he had not had any lunch to eat, because he said he had no money. Mr TJ also said he had given Mr YN an advance on his wages in the form of groceries in his first fortnight. (f) Mr QF of FQF gave evidence that when he approached Mr YN, after Mr QF had discussed the invoices with Mr TJ, Mr YN assured him that he accepted the invoices were his, and that he had paid...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 189 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...application. [7] Mr Cranney, counsel for the plaintiffs, submitted in summary: a) The plaintiffs’ case is that the real employer is IR; Madison’s only role was to send persons that were recruited to IR, to pay them as directed by IR, and to perform certain other limited functions as IR’s agent. b) There is a clear and appropriate procedure by which IR could advance its position that Madison is the employer, and not it; that would occur by IR issuing third party proceedings...

7. Gwak & Kim TRI-2020-100-006 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...“being like a boxer with one arm tied firmly behind his back” is apposite. [21] The enquiry is whether, as between the parties, it is just, or fair and appropriate that the first respondent’s defences are limited to the extent they are claimed to be as a result of the claimants’ delay. This is a balancing act. [22] The claimants are advancing a claim that meets the statutory requirement of eligibility. They sue the first respondent for negligent building work which he...

8. Engelbrecht TRI-2020-100-007 Procedural Order 6 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...to considering the pleadings only and may assess evidence in determining whether to remove a party.5 Ellis J has observed that if the Tribunal is to hear and determine claims in an “expeditious and cost-effective way, [it] must be able to perform an active gate-keeping role in terms of both the joinder and removal of parties.”6 This can include the early receipt and assessment of evidence. [7] In circumstances where the evidence is contentious or challenged, or a party’s v...

9. ACM Ltd v ZXS [2013] NZDT 113 (17 June 2013) [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...Meyer ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZXS is to pay to ACM limited the sum of $862.50 by the 27th June 2013. Facts [1] ZXS contacted the Applicant (ACM Ltd) by email in November 2012 requesting a valuation of his motel premises in [a city]. After an exchange of emails clarifying what type of valuation was required, when it could be done by, and receiving an indication from ZXS of the value needed for his purposes, ACM...

10. LU v VK LCRO 209 / 2011 (17 April 2012) [pdf, 67 KB]

    ...title to land). No undertaking was given by the Practitioner’s firm and in 1993 the firm released the sum of $6,000 to its client. A Disputes Tribunal later concluded that the Practitioner’s client was in breach of the contract for having requested payment of this money to him. 2 [5] The adjudicator noted that the Applicant sought repayment of this sum by the Practitioner’s client back to the Practitioner’s firm for holding. However, the adjudicator explained...