Search Results

1. TA v NC & Anor LCRO 207-208 / 2011 (20 December 2012) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...were no discussions around costs or statements in his emails about his financial position and/or matters of legal aid as previously discussed. He also said there were no discussions about terms of engagement or other company procedures, and no requests to enable a check on his credit worthiness. He said that he had mentioned legal aid to PD and assumed that the firm had taken on the case as a legal aid one, based on his original request for assistance, which he considered this was...

2. NQ & SS v QG & Ors [2024] NZDT 83 (9 January 2024) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...compensation for that act must therefore fail. Was a misrepresentation made about the contribution to fencing? 22. The counterclaim by QG and NC seeks payment of a $1,500.00 contribution to fencing which they say was agreed by SS. NQ and SS offer two forms of defence to this claim: a. first, that if an agreement was made it should not be enforceable because QG and NC misrepresented the reasons they wanted a new fence; b. second, that if an agreement was made it was only ever a c...

3. [2013] NZEmpC 146 Strawberry Tree Ltd v Tuckett & Parr [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...steps necessary to pursue its claim. No such delays will be tolerated in future. [13] The deadline of Friday 26 July 2013 came and went without any step being taken by Mr Kavanagh. On 29 July 2013, he contacted a staff member of the Authority requesting copies of the statement of problem and the statement in reply. Those were then provided by the Authority to the Court on 31 July 2013. [14] Having regard to the documents now before the Court and the manner in which the matter...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 12 Haven Falls Funeral Home Limited v Tepania [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...the category 2 daily recovery rate of $2,390, totalling $9,799. The defendant submits that is a fair and reasonable award of costs in the circumstances. In support of the reasonableness of such an award, the defendant also points to delays and requests for the notice of discontinuance as a factor to also be considered. [4] At the request of the Court, the defendant subsequently filed a memorandum itemising the attendances claimed and corresponding time allocations, which is set...

5. TE & EE v UO [2024] NZDT 324 (1 May 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...obligations to S Ltd, and it was foreseeable that S Ltd would call on them when it suffered loss in consequence of his conduct. [14] Thus, the claim of TE and EE is allowed. Referee: C Hawes Date: 1 May 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 f...

6. LCRO 10/2016 CT v WN (31 October 2018) [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...the critical statements before the Court, impliedly asserting Mr WN had been negligent. Mr WN declined. He also declined to continue acting for Mrs CT because he did not accept her implied allegations of negligence. Summary The Committee formed the view that Mr WN was aware of what was required to support Mrs CT’s claim and that he communicated what was required to her. No such evidence was forthcoming and consequently the claim was struck out. When Mrs CT...

7. XX v TD [2024] NZDT 235 (7 February 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...failure by TD to use reasonable care and skill in providing the service. Rather, the reports mention these general issues as being some of the risks of undertaking orthodontic treatment. 6. In his evidence, TD claimed he had given XX a consent form that contained advice of the risks of the treatment. XX denied ever receiving the consent form. TD was unable to provide a copy of the signed form as he said he had since left the practice from when it was issued and could no longer access...

8. BD & SO v LM Ltd & LL [2024] NZDT 242 (21 March 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT LM Ltd LL The Tribunal orders: LL and LM Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay $10,000.00 to BD and SO on or before 18 April 2024. Reasons 1. BD and SO saw [a bar] advertised for sale on [social media platform] for $20,000.00. LL clarified at the hearing that she owns the bar as a sole trader and her parents operate it (she resides overseas), and that the company LM Ltd does not operate the bar. LL was therefore added as the second respondent...

9. UO v TQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 562 (14 November 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...which TO had entered into on behalf of both her husband and herself. 7. TQ Ltd submitted that the terms on its website were part of the contract, because it had emailed through a link to the website terms, and TO had signed a “Customer Acceptance Form” that referred to the link as well as listing certain terms. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 8. However, the emailed link came too late, as a contract had already been formed by the time the email was sent, just 12 minutes befo...

10. Burke Family Trust v Wellington City Council [pdf, 265 KB]

    ...respondent, Mr R E Salt, did not participate in the adjudication claim at all. The fourth respondent, Mrs J Quilter, had done so but had advised at an earlier conference that she would not be attending the hearing. Contact was made with her at her request by telephone as mentioned below. The tenth respondent, Mr Cole, had not been served and Determination 02643.doc 5 therefore was not aware of the claim. During the course of the hearing some inquiry was made as to hi...