Search Results

1. I Ltd v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 71 (10 February 2023) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...transaction was entered into. (c) The wording of both the Warning Notice/Disclaimer makes it clear that I Ltd is solely responsible for making the final selection of the product. (d) The wording of the Warranty Policy makes it clear that D Ltd’s only responsibility is the repair or replace product supplied. (e) The wording of the Warranty Policy makes it clear that D Ltd’s liability is limited to repair or replacing product supplied, and that D Ltd is not liable for any costs a...

2. 2023-09-26-Evidence-of-Bryn-Rowden-Terrestrial-and-Freshwater-Ecology.PDF [PDF, 233 KB]

   ...The s87F Water Quality and Aquatic Ecology Assessment of Logan Brown (for the Regional Councils) dated 28 April 2023. (e) The s87F Terrestrial Ecology Assessment of James Lambie (for the Regional Councils) dated 28 April 2023. (f) Section 92 Response dated 23 December 2023. P a g e | 3 (g) The statement of evidence of Nicholas Goldwater (Terrestrial and Freshwater Ecology) on behalf of Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency dated 4 July 2023. (h) The statement of evidence...

3. TN v HD [2023] NZDT 468 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...survey pegs. 22. My findings are: a. In the law of negligence, every person is responsible for his or her own actions. b. A person can only be liable for another person’s negligence in certain limited circumstances. c. It was Mr E’s responsibility to ascertain the legal boundaries before carrying out earthworks. Page 4 of 5 d. TN has no civil liability for the damage that Mr E caused. e. Removal of a survey mark is an unlawful act, subject to a fine of...

4. BI v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 178 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...calculations of weekly earnings where an earner had earnings as an employee in permanent employment immediately before incapacity commenced. Section 252(4) of the Act requires the Corporation to refund the excess benefit payment to the department responsible for the administration of the Social Security Act 2018 if the Corporation knows that this section applies. [17] In relation to the applicant’s submission as to the tax rate applied to his compensation, this Court agrees with...

5. [2025] NZEmpC 24 Cunningham v healthAlliance NZ [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...[11] Therefore, I grant the order sought by Mr Cunningham. healthAlliance is to disclose, in a sworn or affirmed statement, whether any document or any class of documents specified or described in the notice that has not been disclosed in the response to that notice: (a) is in the possession, custody, or control of healthAlliance; and (b) if not, whether any such document or class of documents was ever in the possession, custody or control of the opposing party; and (c) if so,...

6. NM & TX & KC [2024] NZDT 758 (13 November 2024) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...build the boundary fence? Was a contribution to the fence cost agreed by KC? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 5. The Fencing Act 1978 (“FA”) provides a regime where occupiers of neighbouring land not separated by an adequate fence are responsible for sharing the costs of an adequate fence. In order to arrange for fencing work to be done on a shared-cost basis however, an occupier must either: a. come to an agreement with the adjoining occupier about the fence and fencing wo...

7. KH v EI [2024] NZDT 380 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...vehicle on any part of the roadway so as to obstruct other traffic. 14. EI said that in part the collision was caused because the dip in the road obstructed his view and KH’s car which was stopped in contravention of the Road User Rules 6.3(1) were responsible for his failure to stop without causing damage to KH’s car. 15. For J Ltd to prove its claim against EI it must prove the claim “on the balance of probabilities’. That means that J Ltd must prove that “it is more lik...

8. QC v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 549 (19 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...he had bought and found the wrench was missing. He said that he had contacted the Respondent in the next couple of days to let them know but had not had a reply. When he followed it up further he said he had a number of difficulties obtaining a response from the Respondent, but when he did get a response, he found the responses to be inadequate. He then filed the claim. 7. NS’s evidence was that the usual practice which she remembered following in this case was to put the items on...

9. [2024] NZREADT 39 – Chen v REAA (22 October 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...On 8 March 2024, the Authority wrote to Ms Chen (by email and post) advising an intention to cancel her licence because she did not complete the required 10 hours of verifiable training by 31 December 2023. She had 10 working days to provide a response. Licence cancelled [10] The Registrar’s delegate cancelled Ms Chen’s licence on 28 March 2024 under s 54(d) of the Act, as she had not completed the 2023 verifiable CPD training by 31 December 2023. She was prohibited from b...

10. CN v B Ltd & ors [2024] NZDT 471 (31 May 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

    ...Contract and Commercial Law Act , not the Consumer Guarantees Act. As to whether this was a contract at ‘owner’s risk,’ as stated above, the respondent relies on the stipulations in its ‘terms and conditions’ that the respondent will not accept responsibility for any loss to a customer. Although the term ‘owner’s risk’ is not specifically used in this documentation, I accept that this is substantively the meaning, and effect, of what is said. 9) A contract will be at �...