Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 163 LDJ v EZC Costs [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...tariff. Disbursements of $224.88 are also sought in relation to the filing fees for the statement of problem and application for removal filed in the Authority. Finally, costs of $250.50 plus GST are sought on the application for costs. [5] In response, counsel for the respondent acknowledged that costs are payable in relation to the legally aided portion of the case. However, counsel submitted that although it is within the Court’s jurisdiction to award costs where a litigant i...

2. Guthrie v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 033 (26 February 2025) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...learning of it would also be relevant. [13] This Court notes that the delay in filing the Notice of Appeal in complete form is nearly six months, which is not insignificant. However, this Court finds (as outlined in paragraph [16] below) that the responsibility for the delay in filing lies, not with Mr Guthrie, but with his counsel Ms Woodhouse. The Supreme Court has noted that account can be taken of the fact that the error in filing late was made by a legal adviser.7 (b) Th...

3. CD & ors v CU Ltd [2024] NZDT 508 (23 June 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...20. I am not satisfied that the trustees have established on the balance of probabilities that CU Ltd had an obligation to identify and attend to the leaking problem in this instance, as opposed to the Body Corporate and Building Manager having that responsibility, or that CU Ltd failed to act on the issue in so far as they had an obligation to act. I dismiss this part of the claim. Conclusion as to whether CU Ltd breached the agreement it has with the trustees 21. I am not satisfi...

4. [2018] NZIACDT 28 - SB v Atia (8 August 2018) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...dealings relating to fees, discussed in the substantive decision. [6.2] Loss of money relating to the operation and ultimate sale of the business, which Ms Atia operated with the complainant under a profit sharing arrangement. He regarded her as responsible for giving flawed advice regarding the purchase of the business. [6.3] His loss was a total of $49,196.64. In addition, he had immigration expenses of approximately $20,000. The Advisor’s position regarding sanctions [7] Si...

5. Justice Sector Report Letter - June 2025 [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...February 2025 to 14,230 in June 2035, driven by an increase in both the remand and sentenced populations. Corrections is actively monitoring actual growth trends (including demographic and geographical elements) to inform short, medium and longer-term responses. Those responses include assessing operating and capital cost pressure implications. Corrections is actively managing its baseline funding as well as planning ahead to identify what capacity actions and funding support may be...

6. TE v X Ltd [2025] NZDT 121 (18 April 2025) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...the timeframe for payment should be implied in this case to not be immediate, but on the other hand, to not be unduly extended. The timeframe should therefore be implied by law to be “as soon as reasonably practicable”. This wording mirrors the responsibility of the dealer to deliver within that timeframe once payment is made (clause 2.1). 9. I have had regard to TE’s recollection that there was a phone discussion prior to purchase in which he indicated it might be several weeks be...

7. BORA - Adoption Amendment Bill [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...above, it seems more likely that this is not the case. Further, the Bill does not engage the statutory definition of family status under s 21(1) of the Human Rights Act 1993. The Bill draws distinctions based on overseas adoption, not the mere fact of responsibility for care of children or dependents – which is the most relevant statutory definition of family status under the 1993 Act. However, even if it was the case that the Bill could be said to draw distinctions based on family sta...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Ram [2011] NZLCDT 32 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...on his own account when not entitled to do so. (c) Charge 3 alleged that Mr Ram had deceived and misled the Courts and fellow practitioners regarding his status as a person entitled to practise on own account. (d) Charge 4 alleged that his responses to a judge on certain questions regarding security for costs were misleading. [2] In his formal response to the charges and affidavit in defence filed with the Tribunal, Mr Ram denied all of the charges. The charges were set down...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Kwon [2025] NZLCDT 23 (22 April 2025) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...days following the Easter break, namely the 6th day of May 2025, in order to allow the practitioner time to make arrangements for his clients’ representation in that two-month period. A censure is required to remind Mr Kwon of his professional responsibilities and to act as a marker for any future disciplinary processes that might arise. Costs [31] Mr Kwon accepts the imposition of an order for costs must follow the event, particularly given his conduct at the proceedings. The...

10. MC v IS [2025] NZDT 145 (24 March 2025) [pdf, 107 KB]

    ...The issues to be determined are: a) What has caused the damage to the garage? b) Is there an actionable nuisance? c) What sum, if any, is payable in damages? What has caused the damage to the garage? 6. MC bears the onus of proving that IS is responsible for whatever has caused the damage to the garage wall. Her initial suggestion was that the garage had been damaged by the roots of the clivia, because the roots could be seen coming through the wall. However, clivia have soft, tube...