Search Results

1. QM v QU Ltd [2021] NZDT 1673 (11 October 2021) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...to be working satisfactorily. 7. In emails to and from QM on 16 August 2021, QU has refused to fully refund the purchase price and cost of delivery to QM on the basis that the problem appears to be a software issue for which QU says it is not responsible. QU was prepared to refund the purchase price, minus $20% restocking fee, under QU’s “Change of Mind Policy”. 8. QM claims a refund of the $1,699.00 purchase price and the $12.08 delivery charge. 9. Note: The value of t...

2. EN v CQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 51 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...not he had a contract with GQ Ltd. That is because section 281(1) of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 states: “A proceeding against a contracting carrier in respect of the loss of or damage to any goods that occurs while the carrier is responsible for the goods in accordance with section 256 may, if the Page 2 of 4 property in the goods has passed to the consignee and the consignee is not the contracting party, be brought by the consignee”. Property in the...

3. KI & LG v CN & MT [2019] NZDT 1507 (30 May 2019) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...2019. Reasons: 1. The respondents are the former owners of land over which there was a right-of-way used as a driveway by several of their neighbours, including the applicants. Following a slip on 7 July 2016, the parties disagreed over who was responsible to pay for repairs to the driveway. The owners of the other four properties using the driveway agreed to pay 20% each, but the applicants argued that the respondents should pay for the repairs due to negligence in constructing and m...

4. [2021] NZACC 168 - Coogan v ACC (2 November 2021) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...accepts that a considerable amount of time was devoted to the case by Dr Jefferis, but that time was justifiable because of the novelty of the area of medicine as well as the substantial and sustained dispute put up by ACC and its experts. [29] In response, Mr Barnett notes that in the respondent’s experience, fees for a comprehensive medical opinion provided in a complex case on appeal are in the range of $3,000 to $5,000. [30] Mr Barnett also questions a very substantial su...

5. [2021] NZEmpC 109 Jackson v The Aorere College Board of Trustees [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...ability to deal with his claim in a just manner. [9] Mr Jackson is clearly frustrated with the way in which the Authority has dealt with his case to date. Counsel for the respondent submits that Mr Jackson and his representative must bear some responsibility for difficulties with case management. I am not in a position to make any assessment of that. What is however clear is that the grievance has been on foot for a considerable period of time and that this is significantly imp...

6. B Ltd v IX [2019] NZDT 1392 (6 September 2019) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...mediation if IX did not proceed to a hearing. This left IX feeling that she had no choice but to proceed, despite her misgivings about taking the case further. The onus is then on the company to prove that its threat to charge was not a breach of its responsibilities, given that the client should have a right to withdraw for reasonable cause. Given the context of this dispute, I could see no reason why IX’s case should be viewed any differently to the others, and her decision to withd...

7. Environment Court COVID-19 Protocol - September 2022 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...everyone. Counsel and representatives are encouraged to be proactive in their communications with the Court when required. For registry enquiries, contact details are set out below. Communication by email or telephone can also occur with the responsible Hearing Manager or Case Manager. Communications with the presiding judicial officer should be by memorandum. Entry to Court Buildings 1. The following requirements apply to entry into court buildings and premises used for heari...

8. Environment Court COVID-19 Protocol - September 2022 [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...everyone. Counsel and representatives are encouraged to be proactive in their communications with the Court when required. For registry enquiries, contact details are set out below. Communication by email or telephone can also occur with the responsible Hearing Manager or Case Manager. Communications with the presiding judicial officer should be by memorandum. Entry to Court Buildings 1. The following requirements apply to entry into court buildings and premises used for heari...

9. MT v UI [2022] NZDT 54 (9 May 2022) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...were more than 20 patches of damage on the lawn. 7. The written evidence from S, director of D Ltd, supports a finding that UI’s actions caused damage. D Ltd initially installed the artificial turf, and also installed the replacement turf. In response to a question from X Ltd S said the grass was definitely melted, with the melted points at a consistent rough distance off the hedge line. S’s opinion was that the use of a hedge cutter would “be the culprit to melting the grass i...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 2 v Johnson [2022] NZLCDT 32 (7 September 2022) [pdf, 83 KB]

    ...could not be marked by any penalty short of a period of suspension. [23] Having regard to the above factors and in particular to the penalty imposed in the Ellis matter, we determined that a suspension period of three months was a proportionate response in this instance. Costs [24] We consider that the Standards Committee ought not to have pursued the charge 2 at the level of misconduct, having regard to the de minimis nature of most of the defaults under consideration. Havin...