Search Results

1. NI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 187 (2 May 2025) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...truck to the storage yard. As a form was completed, and as NI did authorise the tow personally, and did willingly leave his vehicle at the storage yard, I find any failure to obtain a signature, should it have been necessary, does not absolve him of responsibility for storage fees. The claim for a refund of fees and non liability on the basis of the tow authority cannot therefore succeed. Is the storage price reasonable? 7. NI has claimed the fee charged for storage is excessive....

2. [2025] NZEmpC 240 Gouws v Optimal Fire Ltd [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...especially in establishing that, as employees, Mr and Mrs Gouws were “in trade”. I agree that the claim is novel but, at this stage, I am not prepared to conclude that it has no prospects of success. If the position is as Mr Wicks submitted, the response required to deal with the pleading is unlikely to be time consuming. [26] I accept Mr Swan’s point that it would be unreasonable to deprive Optimal Fire of an ability to pursue these causes of action where no prejudice c...

3. SZ v DE & J Ltd [2025] NZDT 201 (07 May 2025) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...on all the evidence before me, I accept the traffic crash report provides compelling evidence of a failure to take reasonable care, and it is more likely than not that DE was the driver. J Ltd representative IC confirmed that J Ltd had received no response to its various attempts to contact DE and had not been provided with any information to defend DE’s position of being held liable for the damage. As earlier stated, neither has the Tribunal received any defence of the claim. If s...

4. 2025 NZPSPLA 121 pdf [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...[1] Ms AB1 says Sean Sullivan is guilty of misconduct by attempting to carry out an unlawful repossession of goods from her business. Mr Sullivan accepts he made serious procedural errors when attempting to repossess the goods and says he takes full responsibility for his mistakes. However, at the time he believed he had proper authority to act. [2] The issues I therefore need to decide are: a) Did Mr Sullivan have any lawful authority to repossess the goods from Ms AB’s busines...

5. Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs on Appeal) [2025] NZACC 194 (11 November 2025) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...the Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant, Edmond Chalecki. [2] By memorandum dated 16 October 2025, the Corporation claims costs against Mr Chalecki on a Category 1B scale in the sum of $4,127.50 calculated as follows: • Item 22 – Response to appeal – 2 days • Item 9.8 – Filing and serving memorandum for judicial conference on 20 November 2024 – 25 days 1 Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation [2025] NZACC 163. 2 • Item 9.9 – Appearance a...

6. NZCVS Cycle 4 2020-21 Controlling behaviours and help-seeking data tables [xlsx, 512 KB]

   ...– Estimates and sampling error - Cycle 4 3.25 Gender of perpetrator and victim, by relationship, for acts of controlling behaviours and harms – Estimates and sampling error - Cycle 4 3.26 Perpetrators and "do not wish to answer" responses – Estimates and sampling error – Cycle 4 Context 3.27 Any harm or act of controlling behaviours as a result of discrimination – Estimates and sampling error – Cycle 4 3.28 Alcohol or drug involvement – Estimates and samp...

7. [2006] NZEmpC AC 50/06 Tu'itupou v Guardian Healthcare Operations Ltd [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...substantive to the grievance to which the employer could realistically respond. She submitted that there is corroboration for this in the form of the letters the employer wrote to her on 21 and 28 June 2002 in which information was provided without any response to the grievance itself. [30] She submitted that having regard to the totality of the correspondence, to an objective observer the grievance or grievances could not be said to have been raised until the final letters in Au...

8. Whooley - Ngaiotonga 1B1 and 2B1 and Lots 1 - 2, and 3 DP383105 (2014) 71 Taitokerau MB 38 (71 TTK 38) [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...have regard to the Preamble to the Act together with ss 2 and 17. In my view, where, as in the present case, a significant majority of the owners have not expressed a view on an application, the Court in exercising its discretion has a particular responsibility to assess whether the terms of the exchange are fair and reasonable. Issues [43] The application raises three broad issues. First, whether the exchange is detrimental to the interests of the Māori owners (s 312(1)(a))....

9. Harris v Department of Corrections [2013] NZHRRT 15 [pdf, 125 KB]

   ...of the trial. When asked about this apparent failure Mr Harris responded by giving contradictory evidence. He claimed that he thinks he did report the first letter to 12 the Police, but cannot be sure. If he did complain he did not get a response. Given the vigorous assertion of innocence by Mr Harris and his claim that the grandmother had set him up, we believe it unlikely that he would not have drawn the letter to the attention of the Police or that the Police would have taken...

10. Wellington v MacDonald - Te Maika B4 Residue (2008) 129 Whangarei MB 258 (129 WH 258) [pdf, 6.1 MB]

    ...his father. Second, the statement makes it clear that Joseph's children were taken into consideration in the decision to allocate Lot 7 to Joseph. This is consistent with Rose's evidence before me that Henare considered that Joseph was responsible to provide for his own children out of his share in the land. [43] After a fillther sitting on 28 Febmary 1997 the partition order was granted on 20 May 1997. Henare and Rose eventually agreed to Joseph having an area of 8,175m2...