Search Results

1. DH v KQ [2021] NZDT 1654 (9 November 2021) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...for people who are induced to enter into a contract by a misrepresentation. A misrepresentation is a false statement of fact. A misrepresentation may be made innocently or fraudulently. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply as this was a private contract and the seller is not in trade. 5. The specs KQ copied from another website stated that the motor is 60V, which was incorrect – it is 52V. KQ pointed out that in the TradeMe advertisement he “copied /pasted” the specif...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 105 TPT Forests Ltd v Stronge [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...in the High Court are an attempt by CNCo to enforce the letter of indemnity. [4] The High Court litigation is currently stayed because TPT Shipping Ltd is in administration under Part 15A of the Companies Act 1993. [5] CNCo now wishes to investigate the potential for litigation against TPT Forests Ltd and/or TPT Group Ltd directly and is making its application as part of its investigation “of all publicly available information on the TPT Entities that casts light on how this...

3. [2022] NZEmpC 44 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...all documents on the Court file including but not limited to statements of problem and defence, and supporting evidence, including affidavits and recordings. [2] Access is said to be sought on the basis that Business Desk is undertaking a major investigation into the charities sector and Gloriavale is one of the charities being researched as part of the investigation. [3] I directed that the application be provided to the parties. The second, third and fourth defendants are opp...

4. XC v UD [2023] NZDT 766 (8 December 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision 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 pr...

5. BQ v EI [2024] NZDT 427 (20 April 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Grounds for Appeal There are very limited grounds for appealing a decision 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 pr...

6. KM & MM v WN & DN [2024] NZDT 577 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...property’s value as prospective purchasers may seek compensation to mitigate for the inconvenience and health concerns associated with this situation.’ 7. I accept that reflection of sunlight into windows from a neighbouring site may be a private nuisance,1 although whether it meets the test depends on the particular facts. But, as explained in the hearing, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort which includes nuisance is confined to those situations where there is property damage...

7. ED v S Ltd [2025] NZDT 151 (27 May 2025) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: S Ltd is to pay ED the sum of $100.00 by no later than 27 June 2025. Reasons: 1. ED booked 2 rooms at [Location] on [booking website]. The facility, offering rooms with private facilities, is advertised as being five star. The total amount paid for 2 rooms for one night was $615.50. Most reviews on [booking website] were good with a rating score of 8.3, however ED has subsequently noted a number of negative...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 147 Amcor Flexibles (NZ) Ltd v Gillan [pdf, 403 KB]

   ...By that stage it was apparent that Mr Gillan’s medical condition was more complex than it was first thought to be and the company could not accommodate what was suggested. [66] Mr Meikle submitted that alternatives had not been adequately investigated by considering: (a) providing work interspersed with recommended rest, through a mixture of allowing accrued leave to be taken together with reduced or different working hours; (b) moving Mr Gillan to work on a different pri...

9. Taylor v Corrections (Jurisdiction) [2019] NZHRRT 17 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...Commissioner had not investigated Mr Taylor’s complaint under IPPs 1, 4, 9 and 10. [5.2] Although Mr Hunter had contacted the Commissioner’s office to express support for Mr Taylor’s complaint, Mr Hunter was not a party to the Commissioner’s investigation. By email dated 10 September 2014 Mr Hunter had been informed he was not a complainant. [6] By application dated 10 July 2015 the Chief Executive has sought orders striking out the claim as it relates to IPPs 1, 4, 9 and 10....

10. ENV-2016-AKL-000239 Colgan v Auckland Council amended appeal [pdf, 879 KB]

    ...Clause 6 of First Schedule. ResourcrMal'lImll!!~It-Ar::HiI91---, FORM 2 AtJC LAND C UNCIL Correspondence to : Attn: Unitary Plan Submission T am Auckland Council CeD r'8~'f~c"'" Freepost Authority 237170 . ~ vfU1V Private Bag 92300 ,-, - ,I Auckland 1142 Submitter detairs - J" ·\'f\t S""'\Y('{'\I&,,·:o ........ FuJI Name of Submitter or Agent (if applicable) For office use only Submission No: Receipt Date:...