Search Results

1. Hinaki - Whangara A5 (2023) 116 Tairāwhti MB 143 (116 TRW 143) [pdf, 421 KB]

   ...Whāngārā Road, Whāngārā, Gisborne Land Information New Zealand Reference: 410955 District Council: Gisborne District Council Charges against the Block: No charges Is the partition intended to be a hapū partition in terms of the Resource Management Act? No Old Valuation of Block: (as at 01/07/2020 cf 2021 valuation) Capital Value: Land Value: Improvements: $95,000.00 $94,000.00 $1,000.00 Shares held by the Trust: 0.5 Value of Share: $32,500.00 [4...

2. [2023] NZEmpC 63 Hilford v Board of Trustees of Whangarei Boys’ High School [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...letter to the principal in April 2021. [28] Mr Harrison submitted that the school would be prejudiced by allowing leave to be granted. He said defending bullying allegations said to have occurred three years ago would require significant school resources which are already strained. He submitted it would likely be difficult to locate and/or recall evidence from existing and former staff pertaining to a 2020 claim that WBHS was not notified of until 2021. [29] However, Mr Harris...

3. [2022] NZIACDT 18 - TQ v Gibson (25 July 2022) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the previous owner of the Immigration Centre. She had done so. [23] In her letter to the investigator, Ms Gibson said she had taken over the business in January 2021 and was under extreme pressure given the number of clients. She had limited resources as she was the only one in the business. [24] Ms Gibson set out the improvements she had since made to her practice. She had employed another adviser as a contractor and had engaged a “virtual assistant” to 5 answer cal...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 112 Shaw v Bay of Plenty District Health Board [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...to the DHB potentially risks diminishing the financial impact of this litigation on it. Mr Mitchell recognised that possibility and acknowledged there would be a detriment to the DHB if his submissions were accepted, but drew attention to its resourcing and greater ability to absorb costs compared to Ms Shaw. I do not agree that looking at the matter in this way is appropriate. The DHB is a publicly funded health-service provider. There is no reason why that public funding shoul...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 117 QDY v Counties Manukau District Health Board [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...or lead to an immediate outcome. The test in s 178(2)(b) is not, however, binary; each case will need to be considered in context to 29 Waikato District Health Board v Archibald [2017] NZEmpC 132, [2017] ERNZ 791 at [39]–[42]. 30 Bathurst Resources Ltd v L & M Coal Holdings Ltd [2021] NZSC 85, [2021] 1 NZLR 696. 31 Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd [2005] NZSC 34, [2005] 3 NZLR 721 at [20]. determine whether the level of urgency involved in the case, and the nature of the...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 122 Reunited Employees Assoc Inc v Nelmac Ltd [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...[44] There is a broader consideration, however, about whether it would be in the interests of justice to order security for costs.28 An order is usually accompanied by a stay until security is paid or otherwise provided. Given REA’s limited resources the reality is that an order is unlikely to be complied with and the resulting stay will effectively end this litigation. [45] An order having the effect of stopping the litigation in its tracks has obvious consequences for the uni...

7. Dixon v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2022] NZACC 251 [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...[1963] NZLR 339, 353-354 (CA); Edwards v Bairstow [1995] 3 All ER 48, 57; [25] Even if the qualifying criteria are made out, the Court has an extensive discretion in the grant or refusal of leave, so as to ensure proper use of scarce judicial resources. Leave is not to be granted as a matter of course. One factor in the grant of leave is the wider importance of any contended point of law; e.g. Jackson and Kenyon above. [5] An error of law will also arise where a decision is wro...

8. KN v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 106 (28 February 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...NZDT 106 APPLICANT KN RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay $5,800.00 to T Ltd on or before 20 March 2023. REASONS Brief Details of Claims 1. KN owns a property at [Address]. KN submitted an Application for Resource Consent to subdivide the property into three lots. There was an existing house on the proposed Lot 1. 2. During the period December 2021 to March 2022, T Ltd carried out work on the property at KN’s request. The work involved const...

9. AB v CD Ltd [2022] NZDT 87 (23 June 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...industry-based disclaimer about the content and use of the property inspection report. CD accepts it is likely in these circumstances that this attachment was not emailed with the handwritten report, as CDL’s full office and administrative resources were not available to him at that time. Was the building report carried out with reasonable care and skill and was it fit for purpose? 11. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (“CGA”) applies to this contract because th...

10. DI v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 114 (10 April 2024) [pdf, 232 KB]

    ...in situations like this they are under no obligation to relist properties as they already have an agreement in place by way of a confirmed booking. MB further says Christmas is a very busy period of their staff and they did not have the time or the resource to take the steps DI wanted them to take. 34. While I accept, under their terms and conditions, C Ltd was under no obligation to relist the property, I believe this term was harsh in the circumstances of this case. I do agree with D...