Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 48 Kilpatrick v Air NZ interlocutory [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...security for costs in respect of the challenge. It seeks that the sum of $20,000 be paid into Court pending the hearing of the challenge. It also seeks a stay of the challenge until such security is given, either in payment or other satisfactory form. It also asks the Court to set a time limit for such security to be given. [5] Ms Kilpatrick has filed a notice of opposition to the applications. Whilst she has not paid the awards of costs made by the Authority, Air NZ has not yet...

2. 2018 NZSSAA 008 (5 February 2018) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...Benefit Review Committee. Accordingly, we conclude that the Authority has no power to award any costs in relation to either preparing for or attending a review by a Benefits Review Committee. Costs of second appeal [18] The second appeal formed part of the original notice of appeal which was filed on 14 July 2015. The Authority asked the Ministry to file its s 12K report by 20 October 2015. On 19 October 2015 Mr Signal sent an email to counsel for the appellant stating th...

3. Beauchamp v B & T Co (2011) Ltd (Costs) [2022] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...basis. [11] The primary submissions made by the Director in support of the application are: [11.1] Prior to filing her proceedings the plaintiff made an offer to settle the matter on a without prejudice save as to costs basis. That offer included a request for global compensation in the amount of $35,000. Failure by the defendants to respond to this pre-litigation offer is said to have been unreasonable. [11.2] The defendants applied (unsuccessfully) for their names to be suppressed....

4. IEAA - 2013 annual report [pdf, 45 KB]

   ...or the 8 Small Claims Courts as the IEAA will not assume concurrent jurisdiction which could lead to conflicting decisions. CONCLUSION 21. The IEAA has had a limited function during the past 12 months. It has met once at the request of the Ministry of Education Policy Division in Wellington and twice in Auckland. It has not received a large number of demanding files and with only a small number of complaints it is gratifying that there were no real outstanding...

5. CQ & BQ v KN & TN [2024] NZDT 329 (4 March 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...states: The Tribunal shall determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice of the case, and in doing so shall have regard to the law but shall not be bound to give effect to strict legal rights or obligations or to legal forms or technicalities. 13. I do not consider that I have the power under s 18(6) to order that no fence be built on the driveway boundary. That is because, although the section refers to determining the dispute according to the substantial...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 126 McCook v Chief Executive of the Inland Revenue Department [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...materials on the grounds of relevance was ill-founded, as was its objection as to oppressiveness. (e) I then indicated that an order as to disclosure of the training materials would have to await the disposition of the TAA point on which I had requested further evidence and submissions. [3] Those materials were duly filed. It was confirmed that Ms Amanda Rapley, corporate counsel for IR, and Mr Paul Gillespie, junior counsel for IR, held the necessary delegations from the...

7. L Family Trust Limited v KM [2021] NZDT 1319 (24 February 2021) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...wall to its original colour. 16. However, I am unable to make a finding that Mr M must contribute to the painting of the fence. It is common to leave a timber fence unpainted. The building report notes that “the treated timber fence will perform its purpose without a paint coat, however, the paint cost will aid in preventing the timber from twisting and splitting from UV exposure”. 17. The fence has a build up of some moss and lichen. However, this can be waterblasted or spr...

8. D Ltd v Q Ltd [2025] NZT 36 (7 February 2025) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...“looking at” being consistent with an estimate rather than a promise, and the absence of any clause in the signed agreement regarding timing. 6. Alternatively, the purchaser submitted that the response was misleading because it withheld relevant information, specifically that the tenants had not been given notice to leave prior to the contract, and that the owner had not obtained finance to develop his land. However, the tenants were family members who did not need to be given notice...

9. LB & TB v BU Ltd [2024] NZDT 612 (29 August 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...the purposes for which goods of the type in question are commonly supplied. 5. In the present case, the Applicants state that they purchased a kitset cabin to be installed on their property from the Respondent. The Applicants state that the information on the cabin, on the Respondent’s website stated that the kitset was easy to assemble and could be done as a DIY project or by a builder or tradesperson. 6. The Applicants were provided with the written instructions for the insta...

10. MD v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 578 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

    ...someone in the organization that worked on MD’s job. U Ltd is liable to pay MD for the loss he has suffered from U Ltd’s services. Referee: B M Smallbone Date: Tuesday, 30 July 2024 Page 4 of 4 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...