Search Results

1. BQ v XB & TB [2021] NZDT 1637 (7 October 2021) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...access. 9. WJ Council did not dispute quantum and the only evidence of costs put forward by XB and TB was a reference from their loss adjuster as to a $70 sqm rate which is more than that quoted by BQ’s contractor. 10. XB and TB can only be responsible for restoring the surface to its original state, not better. Of the various recent costings put forward by BQ from N Contracting for restoring the driveway as it was, I consider $12,000 plus GST ($13,800 inclusive) is the appropria...

2. D Ltd & KN & PB v QD [2021] NZDT 1622 (28 July 2021) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...normal purposes of urban fencing. He accepted that its surface appeared green, but said that it provided no support and had no structure to maintain it upright. KN considered that his poisoning of the hedge was not a relevant matter as far as QD’s responsibility to contribute to the cost of a new fence was concerned. That was because, said KN, the hedge had not constituted an adequate fence at the time it was poisoned; said that the hedge had no value, and QD would have been obliged to co...

3. 2022 NZPSPLA 008.pdf [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...was less than a year ago and they are not confident that the changes he has made since then have had enough time to demonstrate their sustainability. They are also concerned that his three breach of community work convictions indicate a lack of responsibility and ownership. [6] Mr Mahauariki submits that he has made considerable changes in his lifestyle that are sustainable. His accident in 2021 threatened his life and woke him up to the dangers his lifestyle was presenting for him a...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 55 Wei v Sunlight JMB Future Ltd [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...Authority. He has been placed on notice by Sunlight that if compliance does not occur within a reasonable time an application would be made to the Court to have the proceeding dismissed. [7] Mr Wei is opposed to an unless order being made. His response was that he is securing the funds to provide the security and, once he has done so, the litigation should continue. [8] Providing for security for costs is the only outstanding matter between the parties. There are no other order...

5. [2022] NZEmpC 189 Carver v Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...pleading and assumptions that might ultimately be misplaced and unfair to Metallic. If inferences were to be drawn the company would still not know when Mr Carver said he raised his grievance, or how, and would have no ability to anticipate his responses to its affirmative defences it had previously pleaded. [13] When Mr Carver presented his submissions, he did not respond to Mr McGinn’s criticisms. Instead he concentrated on what he saw as the deficiencies in Metallic’s dec...

6. Factsheet-for-requesting-personal-information [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...the dates and locations, if you know them. Who should I send the request to? • To get copies of your personal records, you need to make requests to the agencies that control them. • Archives NZ has a helpful summary of which agencies are responsible for different records, and contact details for each agency. Personal records – Archives New Zealand • If you need some help identifying which agency may hold your records, you can ask Archives for help: Ask an archivist – A...

7. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Nicholls [2024] NZLCDT 11 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...paper file for the complainant clients. The investigators report that he appeared disorganised and was not functioning well. Mr Nicholls apparently told them towards the end of the meeting that he was suffering from a panic attack. [15] In his response, filed with the Tribunal following service of the application for interim suspension, Mr Nicholls does little to allay the fears which arise concerning the client funds, as narrated above. Rather he said he was too unwell to answer...

8. Goette v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2024] NZACC 96 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...representative is received. In Mr Goette’s case, the Notice of Appeal was signed by Mr Peart, and so could not be registered until the Authority to Act was received by the Registry. [14] This Court notes that it appears that Mr Goette was not responsible for the late filing of his appeal in proper form, and that the late filing resulted from error or inadvertence of his counsel. (c) The conduct of the parties [15] The Supreme Court observed that a history of non-cooperation...

9. Staniland v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims Process) [2023] NZACC 76 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...However, Mr Staniland considers that the Reviewer’s reasoning leading to the decision to confirm the Corporation’s decision was based on incorrect information at the time of the review decision. Mr Staniland also submits that the Corporation is responsible for the fact that his car was uninsured when it was stolen in July 2021, because the Corporation had underpaid him weekly compensation, causing him to be unable to afford to insure his car. Mr Staniland therefore considers tha...

10. LT v OT Ltd [2023] NZDT 356 (23 May 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...the goods after 21 days from the date of contact by our Despatch Department, we will treat this as a request by you to cancel the Sales Order and you will forfeit all deposit monies paid.” 7. The terms of the contract are unclear as to whose responsibility it is to determine if the sofa could be delivered to the applicant. The respondent did not know the size of the access ways to the applicant’s house and the applicant would not have been sure of what size access way would be nec...