Search Results

1. Consultation paper enabling on site audits [pdf, 481 KB]

   ...proposed changes to the Legal Aid Provider Auditing and Monitoring Policy (the audit policy) and the Legal Aid Provider Audit Terms of Reference (audit TOR). The proposed changes would enable greater use of on-site audits as part of the Ministry of Justice’s standard audit programme. 2. An ‘on-site’ audit entails a visit to the legal aid provider’s premises by an external auditor to review the provider’s files and conduct an interview. In an ‘off-site’ audit the Ministry re...

2. Cousins v Plaster Systems Ltd [pdf, 31 KB]

   ...argument that the criteria for removal are analogous with but not identical to the principles applicable in strike out applications in the High Court/ District Court. 11. In coming to this conclusion the tribunal is following the decision of Justice Asher in Kells v Auckland City Council and ORS, High Court Auckland Registry CIV 2008-404-1812,30 May 2008 where His Honour stated: “[33] Consistent with a claim under the act not equating to the filing of the civil proce...

3. BD v DS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1504 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

4. SE v TD and KF [2021] NZDT 1531 (24 February 2021) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

5. HG v ET [2020] NZDT 1411 (1 July 2020) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

6. IU v KI & CI [2022] NZDT 111 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...knowledge that branches do break in high winds. (g) It is also reasonably foreseeable that an overhanging branch may fall onto the road. (h) Photographs of the trees in question show a multitude of branches overhanging the road. It seems to me only a matter of time before one of them would fall on to the road. (i) Through their insurer, KI and CI have argued this was an Act of God. I have rejected that argument. An Act of God is a natural hazard outside human control such as an earth...

7. XB v KI [2022] NZDT 226 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...came on. 6. XB subsequently had the car checked out and was advised that along with the DPF, the head gasket was blown. XB was advised that the vehicle would be uneconomical to repair due to the costs involved. 7. XB contacted KI, but the matter was unable to be resolved between the parties. 8. XB is seeking a refund of the purchase price of the car of $14,250.00 plus $249.80 paid for Road User Charges purchased. He would like to return the car to KI. 9. The issues the T...

8. BD Ltd v QC Inc [2022] NZDT 162 (10 October 2022) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

9. ML v OJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 39 (8 February 2022) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

10. JL v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 76 (17 June 2022) [pdf, 157 KB]

    ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...