Search Results

1. LI v WH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1697 (13 November 2021) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...the loss or damage. Consequently, as LI’s claim relates to the carriage of the vehicle, it is not possible to consider the claim under any other area of law. 7. The CCL provides for four kinds of carrier contracts. An individual carrier’s responsibility for damage to goods differs according to the kind of contract. For a contract for carriage to be considered at ‘declared value’ risk, there must be an amount specified in the contract. The carrier’s liability would then b...

2. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee 1 v Persson [2024] NZLCDT 2 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...particularly for a lawyer. 3. Mr Persson’s approach to his tax problems was one of avoidance, which we also regard as a disturbing reaction in a lawyer. Although he had the funds available to make any payments that were due, he made no responses to the 70 approaches made by the IRD. 4. The size of the default – $224,850. 5. That Mr Persson claimed a wage subsidy during the COVID-19 pandemic, despite being so enormously in debt to the taxpayer, we also regard as an agg...

3. Wellington Standards Committee 1 v Mr V [2023] NZLCDT 26 (16 June 2023) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...seriousness. In accepting that submission, we took into account the following factors: • The conduct took place over a long period of time and involved multiple errors. • The inaccuracies were not trivial. • Some members observed a lack of responsibility taken by Mr V, or perhaps lack of insight into the seriousness of his conduct. However, this was tempered to some extent by the fact that he self-reported to the New Zealand Law Society. Aggravating factors [5]...

4. BP v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 38 (20 January 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...Act 1993 (“CGA”). Section 28 CGA states that where services are provided to a consumer there is a guarantee that the service provider will exercise reasonable care and skill. 14. BP also referred to, and placed significant emphasis on, the responsibilities of members of the Travel Agents Association of New Zealand (TAANZ). G Ltd is a member of TAANZ. BP provided excerpts from a document entitled “TAANZ Members’ Responsibilities to Customers and to the Public at Large”. The do...

5. ET & Ors v CG & KG [2024] NZDT 861 (11 October 2024) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...person suffers damage as the result partly of his or her own fault and partly the fault of another person, damages recoverable may be reduced to an extent that the Tribunal thinks is just and equitable, having regard to each side’s share in the responsibility for the damage. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 5 7. I have had regard to all of the evidence and all of the relevant law. Based on all of this, on the balance of probabilities: a. I find that there were pre-existing cr...

6. Shepherd & Ors as Trustees of the Bell Shepherd Family Trust v Lay [pdf, 288 KB]

   ...April 2004). Therefore, neither TPGL nor SI No 5 is a party to this adjudication. 3.5 The third respondent is Mr Stephen Lay, whom the Owners say was the builder who organised and supervised the construction work. Mr Lay’s actual role and responsibilities in the Ponsonby Gardens development will need to be determined by me, but there is no argument about the fact that Mr Lay was involved with the construction work on this project. The Owners claim that Mr Lay failed to man...

7. [2009] NZEmpC CC 3/09 A Farmer v A Worker [pdf, 55 KB]

   ...by repeatedly grabbing his father’s testicles. The farmer told the boy off for doing this and asked him “Who does this to you?” The boy replied that the worker had touched him in this way. The farmer and his wife gave evidence that, in response to further questioning, the boy made other disclosures including that he had touched the worker’s genitals. [12] The farmer and his wife believed that what the boy told them was true. [13] At about 8.30pm, the farmer tel...

8. AA v AB LCRO 298/2011 (9 October 2014) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...He filed comprehensive submissions in support of his application. The application for review in large part reiterates the concerns raised in the initial complaint. In addition to the submissions filed with his initial application, Mr AA filed a response to submissions lodged by Mr AB’s counsel. [20] I am confident that both parties have had an opportunity to present their arguments in a most comprehensive fashion. Mr AA’s arguments on Review [21] Mr AA is critical of the...

9. Sharma v Manchanda [2018] NZIACDT 2 (2 February 2018) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...a visa. On 1 September 2015, the adviser submitted a request for a visitor visa under s 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The nature of a s 61 request is that it is entirely discretionary, INZ does not need to give reasons for its response; it is however the primary option to seek a visa when a person is in New Zealand unlawfully without a current visa. [6.6] On 4 September 2015, the complainant told the adviser she had been offered full-time employment. On 14 Septemb...

10. IV v DD & Ors LCRO 272/2012 (1 March 2016) [pdf, 81 KB]

    ...“proceeds sale of residence” only, and also disclosed a considerable sum in unexplained fees charged by [Mr IV] which had not been invoiced, approved or notified prior to distribution. [14] She goes on to state that Mr IV was dilatory in his responses to requests for further information, if not ignoring such requests completely. Discrepant values of proceeds from house sale brought to Mr IV’s attention with no response [15] Ms DD notes that the balance shown in a statement rela...