Search Results

1. Regulatory Impact Statement improvements to district court rules [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...Analysis: Regulatory Impact Statement – Improvements to District Courts Rules Executive summary 1. The District Courts Rules 2009 (the Rules) prescribe pre-court procedural steps that require parties in civil cases to exchange lengthy court forms before their case comes before a judge. These requirements are time-consuming and can make limited contribution to resolving a case. 2. This RIS reviews three options for addressing these problems: A. retaining the status quo; B. ado...

2. Linney v Hart [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...Respondent AND No Second Respondent Malcolm MacMillan having been struck out AND No Third Respondent Andrew Lusty having been struck out AND No Fourth Respondent the (Attorney General) DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING & HOUSING ( formerly BUILDING INDUSTRY AUTHORITY) having been struck out Hearing: 24 January 2006 Appearances: Edward Linney, the Claimant in person No appearance by or on behalf of the First Respondent Dougal McLellan, Assessor appoint...

3. AJ v IO Ltd & TF Ltd [2021] NZDT 1692 (10 December 2021) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...of the guarantee of acceptable quality in the Consumer Guarantees Act? b. If yes, is IO Ltd liable for damages, and if so how much, for the following: i. Refund or replacement ii. Consequential financial losses iii. Consequential losses in the form of emotional harm. c. If yes, is TF Ltd liable for damages, and if so how much, for the following: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 i. Refund or replacement ii. Consequential financial losses iii. Consequential losses in the form of...

4. [2021] NZEmpC 51 McKeich v DDUP NZ Ltd [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...the Authority “... pierce the corporate veil and have the second respondent named as the true employer for the purposes of compliance...” with the two previous determinations. [7] A subsequent application, brought by Ms McKeich and Mr Hanson, requested the Authority to remove the application to the Employment Court, on the grounds that an important point of law was raised. [8] In a determination dealing with the application for removal, the Authority stated it was satisfied b...

5. EU & SU v KC [2024] NZDT 615 (15 July 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...overpayment to KC in that event. 46. I have made appropriate orders above to ensure the fence can be built and to provide for any extra costs or overpayment. Referee: L Trevelyan Date: 15 July 2024 Page 7 of 7 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 r...

6. Blyde v Eastside Medical Centre (Strike-Out Application) [2020] NZHRRT 12 [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...CLAIM 1 [1] Paul Blyde has a long-term work-related injury. In 2017, Mr Blyde was a patient of Eastside Medical Centre (Eastside), when he became concerned about communications between Eastside and ACC. Mr Blyde made an information privacy request for his medical file, but he was not satisfied with the information provided. Mr Blyde subsequently complained to the Privacy Commissioner and then filed this claim. 1 [This decisio...

7. GU & OG v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 4 (5 January 2024) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...the materials used on the cabinet doors. 15. I am not satisfied that the applicants have been able to sufficiently prove their claim. 16. The claim is dismissed. Referee: D Alofivae Date: 5/1/2024 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 for a re...

8. DE v KN [2024] NZDT 890 (11 December 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...of past or present facts, including “half-truths”, the Courts have found a breach of section 352. Representations about the property 19. DE claims that the selling agent said that the property was in “decent condition”. A disclosure form was supplied which said: a. there was only one leak in the middle bedroom which had been repaired; b. there were no further leaks in the property to their knowledge; and c. the respondent had disclosed any and all issues they knew...

9. SM v UU Ltd [2022] NZDT 159 (15 December 2022) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...seen in the water tank. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 6 [17] NC provides other explanations for the damage including direct action by third parties trying to steal water or other nefarious reasons to be on top of SM’s water tank. NC later formed the view that the more likely explanation is subsidence. NC has visited the property and notes the water tank is by a bowed retaining wall, likely placed on fill rather than a firm base as recommended, and the wall of the tank has pulling...

10. LCRO 158/2019 RL v BN, TG and VK (1 April 2021) [pdf, 604 KB]

    ...had been provided with negligent advice by [JPBN] and advised to advance a counterclaim when that claim had little prospect of success. (b) She had not been advised at commencement as to the potential cost of the proceedings. (c) She had made request for a full account of time spent on her file, but this had not been provided. By way of outcome, Ms RL made request for [JPBN] to be investigated. 3 Subsequent to filing her initial complaint, Ms RL expanded on her complaint in...