Search Results

1. Hutcheson v Houkamau - Porangahau 2B No 10 (2021) 88 Takitimu MB 118 (88 TKT 118) [pdf, 581 KB]

   ...request, provided 22 Taueki v Procter - Horowhenua 11 Lake Block (2020) 415 Aotea MB 1 (415 AOT 1) 23 Hall v Opepe Farm Trust (2010) 19 Waiariki MB 258 (19 WAR 258) 24 Rameka v Hall [2013] NZCA 203 at [93] 88 Tākitimu MB 129 such requests comply with that provision and are not frivolous or vexatious. The applicants say that, prior to March 2018, the trustees regularly sent copies of minutes to beneficiaries. However, the former trustees subsequently decided to send o...

2. 2023 February Family Violence Provider Update [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...checks required for the facilitator approvals process. The document also clarifies the requirements of the Children’s Act 2014 in regard to police vetting and safety checking of facilitators. Providers will choose from two options when they’re requesting a vetting check: • ‘Agency name’ (Select this option when requesting a vetting check for any staff who will not be facilitating programmes), or • ‘Agency name – Family Violence Specialists’ (Select this option...

3. KI & LG v CN & MT [2019] NZDT 1507 (30 May 2019) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...& LG RESPONDENTS CN & MT The Tribunal hereby orders: CN and MT, jointly and severally, are to pay the sum of $9,033.79 to KI and LG on or before Thursday 13 June 2019. Reasons: 1. The respondents are the former owners of land over which there was a right-of-way used as a driveway by several of their neighbours, including the applicants. Following a slip on 7 July 2016, the parties disagreed over who was responsible to pay for repairs to the drivew...

4. LS v BI [2023] NZDT 382 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...of 21 April (‘machine and fit 1 x spark plug helicoil, run up engine and clear ECU of faults’) $273.66. This is a total of $388.66. Referee: G.P.Rossiter Date: 13 September 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 reh...

5. KU & LU v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 742 (7 November 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...Therefore, I order that D Ltd must refund KU and LU $1757, on or by 5 December 2024, and must arrange to collect the dinghy from them. Referee: C D Boys Date: 7 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 for a r...

6. IJ v BS [2024] NZDT 645 (17 October 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...able to wander onto IJ’s property, in the absence of any evidence from BS about how that happened, raises the inference of negligence. b. L did not have the containment collar on when the incident happened. Again, in the absence of any other information it is reasonable to infer that this is due to a lack of reasonable care by BS. c. Even if N went onto BS’ property before the attack, this is irrelevant in terms of BS’ legal liability for any type of damage caused by L.

7. LCRO 124/2016 LE v AP and MC (20 August 2018) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...included reference to the deadline for the filing the appeal. It seems the Court file was then misplaced and not all of the materials that had been filed reached their destination. The matter resurfaced in Judge Y’s list early in 2016. His Honour requested a further copy of the submissions the lawyers had filed for Mr LE in September 2014 so the costs issue could be determined.2 [4] The lawyers charged Mr LE fees in 2014, about which he complained to the New Zealand Law Soci...

8. LCRO 45 and 46/2014 PO v RQ and FE [pdf, 273 KB]

   ...on each of Mrs FE’s and Mr RQ’s responses as follows: (a) Ms XY agreed that it was not part of [HFE]’s retainer to provide financial advice. (b) There is a lack of correspondence and file notes on [HFE]’s file corroborating Mrs FE’s claim that she encouraged Mr PO on more than one occasion to meet with and take advice from Mr RQ about the purchase. (c) Mr PO also maintains that he rang to speak to Mr RQ about the lease before signing it, and was told by Mr RQ that “M...

9. LCRO 181/2019 SL v GB (29 January 2021) [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...[FHL]’s caveat, the High Court delivered its decision on 13 November 2015 in which it sustained the caveat. [9] As detailed in my later analysis, between 15 January 2016 and 6 April 2016 Mr GB and Ms SL exchanged emails concerning (a) Mr GB's requests for payment of his fees, (b) his attempts to resolve the dispute by negotiation, (c) Ms SL’s queries about his fees for the caveat hearing, the ongoing legal costs of the litigation, and how best to proceed; and (d) Ms SL’...

10. [2025] NZEmpC 5 Harte v MERAS [pdf, 337 KB]

    ...references to the possibility, it is worth referring to earlier statements as to the nature and scope of s 189. There are many, both in relation to previous manifestations of the equity and good conscience jurisdiction, as well as the current formulation. [50] One well-known statement is that of Cooke P in 1987 in Bell v Broadley Downs Ltd.40 He said that, without attempting any exhaustive statement of the occasions when the jurisdiction could appropriately be used, it could apply...