Search Results

1. [2010] NZEmpC 52 Vice-Chancellor of Massey University v Wrigley & Anor [pdf, 27 KB]

   VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY V WRIGLEY & ANOR WN 11 May 2010 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2010] NZEMPC 52 WRC 2/10 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN THE VICE-CHANCELLOR OF MASSEY UNIVERSITY Plaintiff AND MARTIN WRIGLEY First Defendant AND TERRY KELLY Second Defendant Hearing: 10 May 2010 (by telephone conference call) Appearances: Peter Chemis, Counsel for Plaintiff Pe

2. Ruapuha Uekaha Hapu Trust - Hauturu East 8 (2013) 67 Waikato Maniapoto MB 100 (67 WMN 100)- (PDF, 74KB) [pdf, 74 KB]

   ...consultation would still be necessary; d) The 2010 Māori Appellate Court decision stated at paragraph [124] that: The question of how the trust is to approach distributions was identified as an issue for investigation in the original trust order – clause B6. Messrs Tane/Martin have proposed one method of distribution – the trustees have proposed another method of distribution. Both are different from the provisions currently in the trust order relating to distributions. Even...

3. Tweeddale v Pearson [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...evidence is that it was not and they are therefore liable under the agreement for sale and purchase. As active real estate agents they should have known the scope of the warranties they were entering into and the implications for them in having that clause in the contract if the house was not compliant. They, or their agent, proffered the written contract to the claimant who had no reason to vary that term. The Tribunal therefore found that Mr Pearson and Ms Tucker breach their contrac...

4. CP Ltd v XL Ltd 2016 NZDT 906 (16 March 2016) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...is the agreement. The contract then stipulates how that is to be effected, and that involves the common procedure of a chattels list being provided by XL and approved by CP. [9] “Tangible assets” that the buyer will purchase are defined in clause 1.1(16) as “all of the plant, machinery, equipment, furniture, fittings, motor vehicles and other chattels owned by the vendor at the settlement date and used in connection with the business”. [10] “All assets used in relation...

5. D Trust v IAG New Zealand Ltd & Max C & Max E & Orange H M & Orange H G & QBE [2019] CEIT-2019-0037 [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...reasons if I think that the evidence has any weight, so that if the matter were to go on appeal, that issue can be considered. It needs to be transparent. If it is not, that is neither fair nor just. [22] So today, I am not declaring that any clauses in the briefs or affidavits of the witnesses are inadmissible, I am allowing them to be given in evidence. I will allow the documents in the common bundle to remain in the common bundle, but everyone is on notice that if they wish to...

6. [2022] NZEnvC 062 Cassidy Trust v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...24 (Landscape Character Unit 11 – Slope Hill ‘Foothills’) of the Proposed Queenstown Lakes District Plan, as set out in Appendix 1, attached 2 to, and forming part of this order; (2) the appeal is otherwise dismissed. B: Under s285 of the Resource Management Act 1991, there is no order as to costs. REASONS Introduction [1] This proceeding concerns an appeal by Cassidy Trust against parts of the decision of Queenstown Lakes District Council on Stage 2 of the Propose...

7. FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...in-person attendance as the photographer for the wedding must be reasonably fit for purpose. In any event, none of his proposed solutions to date, including drone photography or google satellites, involve a replacement photographer, so that contractual clause is of little consequence either way. 9. At the time of the hearing QM’s proposed plan had changed to having a vaccinated person on site to facilitate QM himself taking photos via a live stream. QM has left New Zealand, he says...

8. MS Ltd v CD [2023] NZDT 133 (11 May 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 133 APPLICANT MS Ltd RESPONDENT CD The Tribunal orders: CD is to pay $4,051.35 to MS Ltd on or before Monday 29 May 2023. Reasons: 1. CD contracted with MS Ltd to be engaged as an independent licensed salesperson. The parties met in April 2022 to discuss the terms of the engagement and on 25 July 2022 CD signed the contra

9. NE & SE v JI [2023] NZDT 661 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...attorney Mr C. Background 3. The sale and purchase agreement was dated 21 December 2022, and names NE as purchaser. It was conditional until 11:00am on 23 December on the purchaser being satisfied with all inquiries he deemed appropriate (clause 22.0). 4. On 22 December, the purchasers’ solicitor emailed the vendor’s solicitor to say the purchasers had identified a leak in the kitchen. The solicitor suggested that, if the purchasers wished to go unconditional, it would b...

10. LN v IQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 11 (25 February 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 11 APPLICANT LN RESPONDENT IQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. IQ Ltd is to pay $549.98 to LN on or before 4pm 15 March 2024. Reasons: 2. On 14 November 2022 LN contracted IQ Ltd to provide property management services over her rental house (‘house’). In March 2023 new tenants moved in and then gave notice to vacate on 21 June