Search Results

1. LCRO 278/2016 [Company 1] v ZC (17 June 2019) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...sent his client files for the company to another party (the defendants in proceedings in which the company is the plaintiff) without authorisation”. [16] The outcome of the review sought by Mr RG was a “review of the decision”. Mr ZC’s response [17] Mr ZC instructed [Company 2] to act for him in connection with this review. In their response to the application for review Ms OT/Mr HS initially observed that the complaint did not refer to a specific Rule which Mr ZC was a...

2. Tuhi v Tuhi - Toa Toa Tuhi Estate (2020) 83 Takitimu MB 51 (83 TKT 51) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...of income and expenditure since 2009. [10] Following that on 20 March 2017 Ms Bennett wrote to Mr Tuhi requesting the information that he had been directed to provide. She wrote again on 3 April 2017 and on 19 April 2017. Mr Tuhi provided a response promising to file the requested information by 21 April 2017. Additional correspondence was sent to Mr Tuhi including a letter dated 2 March 2018 confirming that, given his lack of response, further proceedings would be initiated....

3. CU v KI Ltd [2022] NZDT 19 (23 February 2022) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...ability to prevent members of the public knocking on the door of a motel unit. He did not know who “Rangi” was, and said that the unit had not been used for any longer-term guests such as emergency housing or quarantine. I am unable to find KI Ltd responsible for the actions of the people who knocked on the door, but have considered whether KI Ltd’s response was adequate. 11. A reasonable consumer would generally expect a motel to have someone available outside of office hours to d...

4. DC v T Ltd [2018] NZDT 1401 (7 May 2018) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...officers of the company were and what functions they provided, amongst a number of other details. This document was required in order to satisfy the Civil Aviation Authority that the planes were safe to fly and were safely run and managed. DC was responsible for providing Quality Assurance processes to the company as required under the Exposition. He also became involved in purchasing materials used in the development of a mobile office, by buying some materials on various trade account...

5. Public Protection Orders updated 29 Sep 22 [pdf, 276 KB]

   ...taking further instructions, attending the client • receiving/perusing notice(s) and associated documents • considering the need for any specialist reports • preparing any submissions or affidavit(s) in support • preparing and filing any responses • considering Review Panel judgment(s) • reporting to client • reporting to and invoicing Legal Aid Services. Court-initiated review - - Preparation * 1 $540 $540 N/A For • taking further instructions, attend...

6. DM & IW v HD [2022] NZDT 44 (2 May 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...only conclusion I can reach in this regard is that he did not consider his advice carefully enough. 9. The second reason that I am not prepared to accept HD’s defence that IW made the decisions that resulted in a poor result is that HD has a responsibility in terms of his profession, and in terms of the Building Code and the Standards that sit under that, to refuse to carry out work which would produce a substandard or hazardous result. This is a responsibility that would transla...

7. LCRO 4/2021 RQ v WJ (9 February 2022) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...was a member of [City] Standards Committee [Y] which had determined to take no further action on Mr RQ’s complaint about Mr DB. [3] That Committee had proceeded with its consideration of Mr RQ’s complaint without realising that Mr DB’s response to the complaint had not been forwarded to Mr RQ. Instead, the legal services officer had sent Mr RQ a copy of a letter from Mr VM, about whom Mr RQ had also complained. [4] Both Mr RQ, and the Committee, proceeded on the basis tha...

8. LA v KD [2023] NZDT 260 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...car could have happened before the collision. KD’s car was unwarranted and had its registration on hold at the time of the collision. LA says this could have been because of pre-existing damage on the right side of KD’s car. c. That KD accepted responsibility for the collision on the side of the road after the collision and offered to pay for the damage to LA’s car. d. That if a third car was involved it could not have driven away because the traffic was slow for the collision ahe...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 58 Cunningham v HealthAlliance NZ Ltd. [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...him on debt payment arrangements. However, no response has been received from Mr Cunningham. The company confirms that it has the funds to repay any award of costs should that be required. As a publicly funded employer, it believes it has a responsibility to taxpayers to recover money that is due to it. Analysis Challenge rendered ineffectual if no stay granted [11] Mr Cunningham says that if the Authority’s orders against him are not stayed, his ability to continue pursui...

10. LL v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 306 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...1. LL purchased some sound equipment via [purchase option] on the U Ltd website. The purchased items were paid for but never delivered. LL now brings a claim against U Ltd for $720.00. 2. LL attended the hearing but U Ltd did not. U Ltd filed a response for consideration during the hearing. 3. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Does the Disputes Tribunal have jurisdiction to consider a claim by LL for negligence for the loss of the purchase price? (b) If not, Does the Disputes...