Search Results

1. HurricanesCrusadersChiefs v Accident Compensation Corporation (Levy Payments) [2022] NZACC 219 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...dated 9 February 2022. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decisions: (1) dated 12 March 2021 changing Hurricanes’ ACC levy classification unit to CU 93180, and (2) 9 June 2021 declining Hurricanes’ request for a new classification unit to be created (b) ACR 34/22 (Crusaders): the decision of a Reviewer dated 8 February 2022. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decisions: (1) dated 25 February 2...

2. Estate of N Kearney v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 162 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...should there be any concern about spreading cellulitis. [7] In the assessment dated 24 December 2022, it was noted that Mrs Tebbs Kearney had advised that a swab of the sacral pressure wound had been taken the day before. At Mrs Tebbs Kearney’s request, a photo of the wound was taken and sent to Dr Pohl. It was further noted: “Discussion with GP re antibiotics. 3 GP okay to wait swab result.” The wound was described as being 5.8×6 cm and stage 4, with a large area of...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. [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...

6. 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...

7. [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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. Clearwater Trust v Flora Creative Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 174 KB]

    Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000042 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 9 BETWEEN STUART CLARK and LESLEY DUNNING as Trustees of the CLEARWATER TRUST Claimants AND FLORA CREATIVE LIMITED First Respondent AND LANDMARK HOMES BOP LIMITED Second Respondent AND PAUL CLARKE Third Respondent AND TAURANGA CITY COUNCIL Fourth Respondent (Removed) Hearing: 5 October 2011 and 29 November 2011 Appearances: Mr R Kettelwell, for the Cl