Search Results

1. [2020] NZEmpC 155 Head v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...the cut-off date for interlocutory applications would be 18 September 2020. A fresh proceeding and application for joinder would, she said, fall foul of that time limit. However, Mr Head commenced his process that day, albeit in an incorrect form; thus I was not persuaded that this was an impediment. The parties had been appraised of his intentions by the due date. [11] Disclosure was discussed. Ms Service, counsel for Madison, said documents relating to Mr Head could be obtai...

2. Howard v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs of appeal) [2024] NZACC 44 [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...determine the issue. [5] On 4 March 2024, Mr McBride, for the Corporation, provided a memorandum as to costs and disbursements, totalling $1,766.55. [6] On 5 March 2024, Ms Howard provided an email response to the Corporation’s memorandum, requesting the Court to exercise its discretion, and, in the circumstances, not award costs against her. Relevant law [7] Rule 14.1(1) of the District Court Rules 2014 provides that the award of costs is at the discretion of the Court if th...

3. LCRO 18/2021 MB v RP and ND (14 October 2022) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...the property they (a) were conflicted, and (b) did not act in the best interests of the estate. (1) Conflict of duties [14] Mr MB said Mr RP and Mr ND “should not be spending time or estate funds advising” Mrs HB about a proposed sale but claimed if they were, then they were conflicted. [15] He asked that Mr RP and Mr ND be required to “represent the interests” of the estate only or resign as trustees and act for Mrs HB. (2) Best interests – conflict of interest [1...

4. [2021] NZACC 107 - Ballantyne v ACC (19 July 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...Ballantyne’s review application for want of jurisdiction on the grounds that it did not relate to a decision of the Corporation. [3] The issues to be determined are: [a] Whether the Corporation made a “decision” on Mr Ballantyne’s “claim” on 1 June 2013, as defined in s 6 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act); and [b] Whether there is a power to review the Corporation’s decision of 13 September 2017, which was made in favour of Mr Ballantyne? ACR 3...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 40 Berry v The Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [pdf, 328 KB]

   ...became the subject of the complaint. The disagreement between Mr Berry and Ms Campbell concerned different recollections they each had as to what occurred and what was said between them over it. [5] The dispute escalated when Ms Campbell made a request to Mr Berry for a written statement of the events leading to the investigation meeting. Mr Berry, in his account, stated that he gave his office desk phone to Ms Campbell so that she could listen to a telephone message left on M...

6. Clay v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2024] NZACC 91 [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...a decision has been made can there be a right of review and if no right of review exists then s133(5) has no application. ... The substance [of the communication in question] has to be analysed.” … [47] … merely administrative issues and requests, do not amount to a ‘decision’ within the meaning of s.6 of the legislation. Whether a ‘decision’ has been made needs to be determined in the factual context and circumstances. Discussion [39] On 20 September 2022, the Cor...

7. [2014] NZEmpC 170 Hagfish NZ Limited v Choi [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...Authority’s investigation of the matter in a manner that was designed to resolve the issues involved. [7] The Authority reported that Hagfish did not facilitate its investigation. It said that despite reminders from the Authority and being requested specifically by an Authority Member to do so, Hagfish failed to file a statement in reply to Mr Choi’s statement of problem. The Authority said that although Mr Coleman had previously communicated with it using an email address wh...

8. WD v HT [2023] NZDT 674 (1 November 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...to be made by HT to put the caravan into the condition he stated it was, without betterment, is 70% of the repair quote, being $4,935.00. Referee: L. Mueller Date: 1 November 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

9. KI v CT [2023] NZDT 125 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...Tribunal orders: CT is ordered to pay KI the sum of $4,473.50. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 30 June 2023. Reasons: 1) In January this year the applicant bought a caravan from the respondent. This was via ‘[online selling platform].’ The price paid was $26,902.00. 2) The advertisement placed by the respondent for the caravan included the following: “It is sold as is with the following comments: Upholstery/cabinetry, carpets are in very good condition- looks m...

10. TG v N Ltd & EX [2024] NZDT 785 (4 November 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...standard because the supermarket does not operate under the RMP. So, it can be sold locally. 9. For the reasons above EX must pay TG $30,000.00. Referee: Ms Gayatri Jaduram Date: 4 November 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply fo...