Search Results

1. LT Ltd v IU [2024] NZDT 531 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...suppliers, and goods include those which are predominantly not part of LT Ltd’ standard stock and/or have a limited shelf-life, LT Ltd says it faces a significant loss. 4. IU denies liability saying no contract was made and it is therefore not responsible for loss. 5. The issues to be resolved are: a. Can LT Limited establish a claim in contract or quasi contract for recovery of the disputed amount? b. If a right to recovery is established, what amount of compensatio...

2. UN v DT [2024] NZDT 844 (11 November 2024) [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...and bearing if I wanted the vehicle” 32. Accordingly I am obliged to find that the sale was an “as is sale”. 33. This means that UN agreed to purchase the vehicle in its current condition, without any warranties or repairs i.e. he was responsible for any issues that may arise in the future. 34. Further, with respect to any suspicions held by UN that DT may not have disclosed something significant about the vehicle, or may have knowingly miss-described it, I also turned...

3. QC v MG [2025] NZDT 34 (16 January 2025) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...most persuasive, and conclude on the balance of probabilities that the fence needs to be fully replaced. How should the cost be shared? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 15. The evidence from KI and XF suggests that MG (or his contractor) is responsible for damaging the fence by adding palings and bark material, and using it to support the falsework when constructing the driveway. This might have been reason for QC to seek more than a half-share contribution, based on s 17 of the F...

4. NH v NC & KC [2024] NZDT 816 (25 November 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...the other. On the basis of the totality of the evidence before me I consider the assertions of this kind to be completely devoid of substance. NH presents as someone who loves [the dog] and cares deeply about her. KC, and NC, come across as careful, responsible, breeders. I have held the respondents responsible for a breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act. They have not, however, in my view, personally caused [the dog]’s [health condition]. What happened with this dog was, as I see it, a...

5. N Ltd v BQ & EQ [2024] NZDT 842 (12 December 2024) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...considerable damage to property as a result. Thus, he said, the wind event on this occasion was exceptional, and a reasonable person would not have foreseen that it could have lifted the shed. Decision on liability [18] I consider that BQ and EQ are responsible for the damage that occurred. The shed in question was a lightweight structure, being one that EQ could lift, and it was not fixed to the ground. Although it had not been blown from its location during the seven years that BQ a...

6. The Algorithm Charter

   Humans, rather than computers, review and decide on almost all significant decisions made by government agencies. As agencies continue to develop new algorithms, it’s important to preserve appropriate human oversight and ensure that the views of key stakeholders, notably the people who will receive or participate in services, are given appropriate consideration. The Algorithm Charter is a commitment by government agencies to manage their use of algorithms in a fair, ethical and transparent way

   Located in:

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

7. 2.10 Authorities

   ...available on the Ministry's website (www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/PSPLA). Please note that the URL is case sensitive. If you wish to enquire about a specific decision you can email PSPLA@justice.govt.nz. Back to top Review Authority The Review Authority is responsible for reviewing decisions made by the Secretary of Justice about legal aid provider approvals. Decisions that can be reviewed include: declining applications to provide legal aid services revoking or modifying a provider's approva...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. News & media >
   3. Media centre >
   4. Media information >
   5. Media guide for reporting the courts and tribunals: Edition 4.1 >
   6. 2.0 Our court system

8. Sixtus v Trustees of the Hokotehi Moriori Trust - Taonga Tūturu on Rēkohu (2025) 97 Te Waipounamu MB 243 (97 TWP 243) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...1 95 Te Waipounamu MB 296–299 (95 TWP 296–299). 97 Te Waipounamu MB 247 (c) is more than 50 years old. [13] Ms Sixtus is asserting an interest and seeking injunctive relief with respect to peoples of German origin who she says are responsible for construction of the waka and bringing it to Rēkohu. In her response to counsel in the memorandum of 5th of September 2025, Ms Sixtus says: (a) His Honour Judge Doogan, Archaeologist reports, The Ministry of Culture and Heri...

9. Auckland Standards Committee 5 v Kang [2018] NZLCDT 6 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...the applicant. When asked about keeping up to date with trust accounting regulations, the respondent admitted that he was not familiar with all the regulations at the time and was in need of good familiarisation. [14] As to the imbalances, his response to questions was that he went to Ms Postlewaight on the recommendation of the Inspectorate because he could not fix the problem himself. In the context of saying that he forgot about the balances he said that he did not want to sh...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Chen [2017] NZLCDT 7 [pdf, 213 KB]

    ...agreed penalty schedule and was entitled to come to its own view on the matter. [5] For the reasons below we do not entirely endorse the suggested penalty and consider that the period of suspension is insufficiently long to reflect a proportionate response to this offending. These are the reasons for our decision. Background [6] In relation to the convictions charge the practitioner had incurred five convictions over a period of six years: (a) On 2 November 2010, a conviction f...