Search Results

1. [2025] NZIACDT 18 – YI v Liu (27 February 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...implemented new practices. He is willing to provide all relevant information to support the complainant’s claims with other relevant authorities. 5 [20] According to Mr Liu, he is aware some advisers actively engage with employers to secure jobs “or” charge tens of thousands of dollars. His situation is different. He is not a middleman to arrange employment. He was misled into believing the New Zealand employer had a genuine need for workers. [21] As for his own f...

2. [2025] NZIACDT 19 – DH v Liu (28 February 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...implemented new practices. He is willing to provide all relevant information to support the complainant’s claims with other relevant authorities. [19] According to Mr Liu, he is aware some advisers actively engage with employers to secure jobs “or” charge tens of thousands of dollars. His situation is different. He is not a middleman to arrange employment. He was misled into believing the New Zealand employer had a genuine need for workers. 5 [20] As for his own f...

3. [2025] NZIACDT 16 – TX v Liu (26 February 2025) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...implemented new practices. He is willing to provide all relevant information to support the complainant’s claims with other relevant authorities. [19] According to Mr Liu, he is aware some advisers actively engage with employers to secure jobs “or” charge tens of thousands of dollars. His situation is different. He is not a middleman to arrange employment. He was misled into believing the New Zealand employer had a genuine need for workers. 5 [20] As for his own f...

4. [2025] NZIACDT 17 – IX v Liu (26 February 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...implemented new practices. He is willing to provide all relevant information to support the complainant’s claims with other relevant authorities. [20] According to Mr Liu, he is aware some advisers actively engage with employers to secure jobs “or” charge tens of thousands of dollars. His situation is different. He is 5 not a middleman to arrange employment. He was misled into believing the New Zealand employer had a genuine need for workers. [21] As for his own f...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 178 Asiaciti Trust NZ Ltd v Harris [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...this employer to justify it is retrospectively based and without sound basis in principle. Fourthly, at her level of employment Ms Harris’ employment agreement would not warrant the clause. She was a trusted administrator and carried to the job skills that she had learned as a legal executive and from her own educational advancement. Fifthly, so far as is relevant and in consideration of the discretion to modify there is nothing that points to any consideration for the restrain...

6. TN v K Ltd [2023] NZDT 649 (1 December 2023) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...NZDT 649 APPLICANT TN RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. TN owns a [vehicle]. 2. In 2022 the vehicle suffered an engine failure. K Ltd re-built the engine for TN. The job cost $14,012.97 and was completed in October 2022. 3. TN had re-located to [country] for work. He asked his friend Mr N to store the vehicle in [town 1]. 4. Mr N took the vehicle for a WOF and turned the engine over occasionally....

7. HD Ltd v DX [2023] NZDT 781 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...for cut-over forestry. The reasons are: (a) Both BH and DX agree that BH said HD Ltd usually works a 10 hour day. (b) Both parties agree that BH said the work would be done on an hourly basis at $185/hr plus GST. (c) DX said that BH looked at the job. When asked how much area could be covered in a day, BH said 2 hectares and 2.5 on a good day. However, BH said that when asked how much area could be done in a day, he said 2-2.5 on a good day for cut-over forestry. DX has the onus to...

8. TC v NU [2023] NZDT 707 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...blocked the driveway, and access in or out of the house along the driveway was impossible. [3] TC sent a message to NU, requesting that NU remove the branch or arrange for an arborist to do so. NU had replied saying that he would “take a look at the job” on Friday and, if it was not a dangerous job, he would remove the branch himself at a cost of $400.00 per hour “when I’m free”; and suggested that he and TC should share the cost of the work. TC found an arborist who was able t...

9. QH v N Ltd & T Ltd [2024] NZDT 523 (8 July 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...correct container, but it was not due to arrive in [City] until early afternoon on Tuesday 20 February. 6. QH and B discussed the problem and agreed that the N Ltd truck could wait until the container arrived. 7. N Ltd invoiced N and QH for the job on 27 February. The invoice included a charge of $475.00 plus GST for wait time. N and QH paid the agreed transport cost, but considered that T Ltd should be liable for the wait time charge. 8. T Ltd disputes liability for that cost...

10. S Ltd v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 850 (14 November 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

    ...TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 850 APPLICANT S Ltd RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by S Ltd for non-liability in tort is struck out; and The claim by D Ltd against S Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. While undertaking a job, which involved removing 100mm-150mm of topsoil on a client’s private property, S Ltd pulled up and damaged a fibre cable that was servicing the property. 2. D Ltd sought to hold S Ltd liable by sending them an invoice for the co...