Search Results

1. EC v NI [2023] NZDT 734 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...including to resow and remove weeds as necessary. EC had no valid reason not to trust that NI would not pay because he had part paid the invoice for undisputed work and he had been a trusted client in an earlier lawn. 14. I considered EC’s response that the grass that has grown now is the grass he originally sowed and not the seed NI sowed. 15. However, EC has no evidence of this and had no photos to show his hydroseeding was on track to grow a good lawn. In contrast, NI’s...

2. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...accordingly and the Court will permit the challenge to proceed on a de novo basis. [21] Mr Chantama will have until 4 pm on 5 April 2024 to file and serve any amended statement of claim. Any statement of defence to an amended statement of claim in response is to be filed and served by the defendants by 4 pm on 6 May 2024. [22] Costs are reserved. M S King Judge Judgment signed at 10 am on 22 March 2024 16 Bourne v Real Journeys Ltd [2011] NZEmpC...

3. [2023] NZREADT 26 – Day v REAA (20 September 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...2, at [43]. 7 address, but because she failed to notify the Authority of any changes of address. Such a failure was not an exceptional circumstance out of Ms Day’s control. [33] Ms Day filed a further memorandum on 6 September 2023 in response to the memorandum filed by the Authority. Nothing in her memorandum identifies any error by the Registrar in applying the statutory criteria or process. OUTCOME [34] The applicant’s application for review of the Registrar’s dec...

4. N Ltd v B Ltd, SL, & I Ltd [2022] NZDT 236 (7 July 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...TL (the witness)) that they should not be there and to say they took the wrong turn. To protect her employer (B Ltd) and possibly herself she may have continued with that story at the hearing. 17. For the reasons above, I find that SL was solely responsible for the illegal dumping whether he was in the truck with her on all occasions or not. What is N LTD’s remedy? 18. Under s 10(1) of the Act, N LTD has a claim in tort for “damage or injury” to its property. The dumping o...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 117 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Stevenson Mining Limited [pdf, 261 KB]

   ...filed an updated costs application. [3] On 10 May 2023, Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Incorporated (‘RFB’) applied for an order awarding costs against Stevenson. [4] On 24 May 2023, Stevenson filed submissions in response to the applications for costs. Stevenson also filed an application for stay of the court’s consideration of costs pending determination of Stevenson’s appeal to the High Court which was lodged on 11 May 2023. 1 Royal Forest...

6. L Ltd v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 247 (30 November 2022) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...policy cap that applies to individual items. […] Please note: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 1. Our member may replace the items by another item of similar type or function 9. I understand that L Ltd issued an invoice to N Ltd in response to this email, but I was not provided with a copy of that invoice. 10. On 25 July, N Ltd sent an email stating: Thank you for your invoice. Our Member has advised us that she may not be replacing all of the items via yourselv...

7. XD v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 100 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...control panel, and it seems this may have got into the motor. 11. XD says that at most her spa has been used for around 6-8 months and has been stored under cover the rest of the time. 12. When the motor failed XD contacted the QTs website. The response, which we now know came from D Ltd, was that the unit was 2 years old, and so out of warranty. It was suggested that the spa would need a new control panel ($99.00) a new “top panel pcb” ($99.00), tech time of $80.00, and shippi...

8. [2024] NZEnvC 192 Auckland Council v Eco Earth NZ Limited [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...described as Lot 1 439913 (the Site). [2] The owner of the Site is New Zealand Oak Property Limited. The tenant and the operator of the Site is Eco Earth NZ Limited and its sole director is Mr Williams. Eco Earth NZ Limited and Mr Williams are responsible for the works on the Site. [3] The Court has previously issued interim enforcement orders in relation to the Site.1 This application does not seek to replace the earlier interim enforcement orders of 4 July 2024. An order i...

9. T Ltd v O Ltd [2024] NZDT 190 (8 February 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...encroach to some extent on neighbouring land in order that he could achieve a fence with no angles in it. [13] I consider that, given that the existing fence had not been straight, and that KT did not mark his wished-for location, KT must bear most responsibility for the misunderstanding that followed. If he wanted a new location that differed from the existing fence, he should have specified exactly where CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 it was to be. I accept that TI re...

10. Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation (Entitlements) [2023] NZACC 158 [pdf, 209 KB]

    ...Easthope was intending to apply for weekly compensation, noting that the Corporation would have to decline weekly compensation as it was understood that Mr Easthope had not been an earner at the date of injury. [23] Mr Easthope sent several emails in response. While he did not clearly say whether he wished to apply for weekly compensation, he did mention that he believed he had “all the elements of reaching the threshold of weekly compensation”. [24] A decision was issued on...