Search Results

1. [2025] NZEmpC 80  AJY v Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...medical grounds. Ultimately, she submitted that AJY’s employment could have ended in a number of ways but that there is no reason to believe that they would have retired and become entitled to retirement leave but for the dismissal. [9] In response, Mr Hope submitted that AJY could have retired. He also submitted that in its judgment the Court found that contemplation of early retirement would most likely have occurred before a dismissal and that termination on medical grounds...

2. PI v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 745 (22 October 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...management. She says the total alkalinity and PH levels were low when the spa was inspected. The cover and jet condition was deemed average. The circulation pump showed signs of damage and deterioration caused by water imbalance which B Ltd cannot be held responsible for. Tribunal’s assessment 12. While PI is certain that he has followed all user instructions, the evidence before me indicates that there is a real possibility that the fault may have been caused due to improper wat...

3. Te Whata v Sanson - Part Maungakawakawa 20 (2025) 288 Taitokerau MB 26 (288 TTK 126) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...of $149,704.43. Following the liquidation, Mr Sanson and Mr Bridgman took proceedings in the High Court on behalf of SSKL to recover those advances from TFL. The Court awarded judgment in favour of SSKL in the amount of $205,091.66.1 [3] In response, Mr Te Whata filed various applications in this Court seeking, amongst other things, an injunction preventing SSKL from enforcing the judgment awarded by the High Court. I issued two decisions where I made it clear to Mr Te Whata that...

4. TG v E Ltd [2024] NZDT 289 (10 May 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...calculations [quantity surveyor]. It included a number of only provisional sums and certain items were specifically not allowed for. It also clearly noted that there was no allowance for price increases or changing market conditions and there was no responsibility taken by the builder for cost overruns. The risk of such lay with the client and not the builder. A fixed price contract would have that risk borne by the builder, but that is not what was agreed here. I do not accept, what is in...

5. VH Ltd v KI [2024] NZDT 386 (24 June 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...same way, KI, and another customer. c) When KI received the “docketed invoice” he emailed OL and asked if the invoice had the updated details, to which he was told yes by OL. A further point was that the hacked emails were attached to her response to him. d) The email address used was the correct email address for VH Ltd and the hacker was able to intercept it on at least two occasions. There were no obvious flaws or clues that the email and invoice might not be valid. In fact...

6. SG v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 557 (5 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...to spend the extra money and he had got a surveyor to ping two points off the building footprint for the architect to complete his design. 6. BS states there was an onsite QA meeting with Council in attendance in late September 2022 to discuss responsibilities and Council inspection requirements. The Council inspector’s report provided after the meeting states “Distances established off existing building”. BS states his very experienced staff member worked to the consented plans...

7. IW v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 609 (8 August 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...into the hearing. Neither of those things happened. Calls were made to the [overseas] number via Teams, but they went straight to answerphone. 3. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from going ahead. CU did provide a written response to the claim, which has been taken into account. Background 4. IW bought two [phones] in December 2022. They were delivered in January 2023. The devices were advertised as IP68, which means they are dustproof and water resistant...

8. KI v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 584 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...orders: The request for a declaration of non-liability is declined; and KI is to pay $511.98 to Q Ltd on or before 27 August 2024. Reasons 1. On 15 February 2024, KI engaged Q Ltd to attend her holiday rental accommodation in [location] in response to her guest advice, via her property manager, that there was no gas to the property for hot water or hob operation. 2. Upon calling Q Ltd’s office in the late afternoon, she was advised that an after-hours call-out was possible b...

9. DB Ltd v UC [2024] NZDT 449 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...find that DM had apparent authority to act on UC’s behalf, and therefore, I find she was UC’s agent. This is because all correspondence was from DM’ UC email account which she was entitled to use for school purposes, and she held a position of responsibility for organising the trip to [town]. Was a booking for accommodation made? 8. This is just another way to ask whether a contract was formed between the Motel and UC for accommodation on the nights of 6 and 7 October 2023....

10. CD Ltd v BM [2024] NZDT 396 (10 June 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...responded to the email by advising BC that the door was as originally planned and that she was unsure why he thought it was any different. It does not appear BC responded to this email. Work however continued to completion. 12. In view of the above response, I find BM did not accept a variation. As BC did not make it clear upon what terms he was continuing work, and as BM had disputed the need for a variation, I find it cannot be held there was an agreed variation. 13. I have als...