Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 243 Swap Stockfoods Limited v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...July 2024, the Court directed a timetable relating to the s 293 process. [6] As part of the timetable, interested parties were to advise the Court of their wish to be heard in relation to the proposed changes by 26 July 2024. The following responses were received: (a) On 12 July 2024, a s 274 notice was filed on behalf of KiwiRail Holdings seeking to join the s 293 process; 1 Swap Stockfoods Limited v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [2023] NZEnvC 001; Swap Stockfoods Limited...

2. BL v R Ltd & U Ltd [2024] NZDT 865 (15 August 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...communicated with the Tribunal that they did not consent to proceedings continuing against the 1st Respondent. BL continued his claim against R Ltd. 5. The issue for the Tribunal to determine is whether R Ltd, as the manufacturer of the system, have any responsibility or liability for the failed installation? 6. The relevant law is the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. (CGA) whether R Ltd, as the manufacturer of the system, have any responsibility or liability for the failed insta...

3. Children's Action Plan & Vulnerable Children Act 2014

   On this page: Child protection policies Safety checking Workforce restrictions on core worker roles New care and protection provisions in the courts Protecting New Zealand’s children is everyone’s responsibility. We're part of a cross-agency effort to prevent child abuse and neglect. We're involved in and committed to various measures being put in place under the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 and the Children’s Action Plan, which aim to keep children safe and ensure their needs are met....

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Key initiatives >
   3. Cross-government initiatives

4. Question, feedback or complaint

   ...you know we received it, and that we’ll be in touch to confirm that we received it within 2 working days (Monday to Friday, excluding public holidays) We’ll investigate your complaint and contact you if we need more information. You should expect a response within 20 working days from the date we received your complaint. If we need more information or the matter you’ve raised is very detailed or complex, we might need more time to make a decision. If we do need more time, we’ll let you...

   Located in:

   1. About

5. Practice directions

   ...important that the dates and odometer readings at which those problems occurred are clearly stated A detailed chronology of events, listing the dates and details of all matters relevant to your claim Evidence to support your claim. As applicant, it is your responsibility to prove your claim. That will involve you providing sufficient information to prove the things that you allege. The evidence you provide should include, where relevant: Advertisements for the vehicle (including website list...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal

6. ID v G Ltd & Ors [2025] NZDT 160 (9 May 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...owner to ensure they do not damage the property while working on it. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 5. It is accepted by all parties that ID’s roof was not damaged before the work started. However, neither G Ltd nor F Ltd has taken responsibility for the damage. 6. I have carefully considered the submissions of both parties. I find that both G Ltd and F Ltd caused the damage. I make this finding because: a) There were dents in many places all over the roof and both...

7. NI v BK [2025] NZDT 260 (4 July 2025) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...user breaches this duty of care, then the person whose property is damaged is entitled to have their property restored to the position it was in prior to the damage occurring. In instances where both parties don’t take care, then each party can be responsible for the damage caused by them. If one party doesn’t take care, then they can be held liable for the cost to restore the other party to the position they were in prior to the damage occurring. 3. The road user rules say that whe...

8. HR v KD & J Ltd [2025] NZDT 223 (9 July 2025) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 times and must take all reasonable care to ensure that their dog does not damage any property belonging to anyone else. 6. KD sent an email to the insurer and did not dispute that the dogs were his and that he was responsible for the resulting collision. He accepted that he should have closed the gate before he started the tractor. I therefore find that KD breached his duty to ensure his dogs stayed under his control. What loss can HR show she...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 171 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 488 KB]

   ...Supervisor’s rate of $18 plus per hour. He said that to ensure the “letter of the law” was upheld, Ms Alim was entitled to be paid at the same rate as she was receiving at PRI immediately before she was transferred. Ms Park phoned Mr Richards in response, stating she believed that Ms Alim had not been promoted and was not therefore entitled to be paid the amount she was claiming. [42] By 29 June 2011, issues of concern had not been resolved. Ms Alim and four other transfe...

10. [2011] NZEmpC 164 Taylor v Milburn Lime Limited [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...2000, the obligation of good faith specifically “requires the parties to an employment relationship to be active and constructive in establishing and maintaining a productive employment relationship in which the parties are, among other things, responsive and communicative”. 7 Guided by the test of justifiability in s 103A, employers must now ensure that, in taking any step which may disadvantage an employee, they do what a fair and reasonable employer would do in all the circ...