Search Results

1. EU v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 181 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...negligent in responding to the seal failure. iv) Did the respondent’s breach result in foreseeable damage. Issue 1 [9] The respondent admits it is the maintenance contractor for the [highway] in [Region] under the [Contract]. The respondent is responsible for maintaining the network for the NZTA and the public who use the network. I am satisfied the respondent does owe drivers and other users of the network a duty of care. Issue 2 [10] The applicant has not provided the Tribu...

2. NO v ST [2023] NZDT 80 (6 July 2023) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...[The Applicant’s insurer] shall refund the Applicant’s $400.00 excess. 3. The Applicant shall pay the Respondent $95.00 by 29 July 2022, pursuant to the counterclaim. Reasons: 4. On 30 July 2021, the Respondent contacted the Applicant in response to an ad the Applicant had placed on an [online noticeboard] seeking a house cleaner. 5. The Applicant received a very convoluted email about pricing, which culminated in the statement that the price “will be more than $90.00 bu...

3. KB v OS [2022] NZDT 287 (28 March 2023) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On the late evening of 14 July 2021 KB was driving his car on [Street name] in [Suburb] when he was involved in a collision with a van driven by LP. KB seeks an order that LP was responsible for the collision and is liable to pay for the damage to KB’s car, which he says is $6,901.00 together with the filing fee for this claim which is $180.00. KB also seeks an order that OS Ltd who are LP’s employer, are vicariously...

4. Emtage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Costs) [2023] NZACC 121 [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...submits that Category 3 of Schedule 4 is engaged. Category C is the category that provides for the largest time allowance for the various steps in the litigation. [11] In his submissions, he is highly critical of the appellant’s employer’s response to her injury, including the denial that there had been an injury as described by the appellant. 2 U-Bix Business Machines Limited v Astra Group Limited, HC Wellington CP104/99, 26 July 2000. [12] Referring to ACC v Carey3, h...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 83 Caisteal An Ime Ltd v A Labour Inspector Costs. [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...to strike out the challenge and only sought one day for step 35 (preparation of briefs) rather than the two allowed for in the scale. That adjustment was made because only one brief of evidence was prepared. [8] Mr Miller filed a memorandum in response to a minute from the Court seeking confirmation that the claimed costs did not exceed actual costs and drawing the parties’ attention to Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc v Northland Regional Council.5 H...

6. 2023 NZPSPLA 074 [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...Group Ltd could consider rewording the plan. [19] I accept Mr Likio’s concerns for the ID were justified.2 I also accept the evidence that he handed it to the first Police Officer he met that night. As I said earlier where he did fail in his responsibility was in telling Mr White that he was leaving the bar and would take the ID with him and give it to the Police. [20] I find it more likely than not that Mr Likio did reference the Crimes Act penalty for the making of a forged...

7. BU & DQ v NN [2023] NZDT 281 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...expiry of the lease. This is an agreement with the landlord, which was in writing, and any dispute about it would be resolved by the Tenancy Tribunal. 6. However, there was also an oral agreement between the parties between themselves that they had responsibilities to each other as flatmates. This agreement is also a legally binding agreement. This implied agreement is not in writing and so only the terms necessary to make the agreement with the landlord work, and anything specifically...

8. HD v NN [2023] NZDT 331 (3 August 2023) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...applications were eventually withdrawn. 22. I have been unable to identify any legal basis on which this Tribunal could make a finding that NN is liable for HD’s legal costs. It was HD’s choice to instruct a lawyer and file his own application in response to NN’s application to a restraining order. 23. In any event I consider it most likely that the parties agreed not to pursue any claim for their legal costs when the restraining order proceeding was discontinued. In those c...

9. [2023] NZEnvC 252 Woodgate v Palmerston North City Council [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...decision of the Palmerston North City Council to return Resource Consent Application RC6923 as incomplete under s 88(3) of the Act is upheld. 2 B. Costs are reserved. Any application for costs is to be filed within 10 working days and any response within five working days of receipt of any application. REASONS Background [1] The Appellant lodged an application for resource consent (RC6923) with the Palmerston North City Council (the Council) on 13 July 2022. That applica...

10. BI v ID [2024] NZDT 806 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

    ...passenger door. It is not disputed that ID held a learner’s licence at the time of the collision, was driving his father’s vehicle unsupervised, and according to BI, ID did not have L plates visible at the time of the collision. Although initially responsive, BI said that he only had ID’s contact details on social media, no actual phone number or email. ID did not send his email address as promised, and stopped responding to BI’s calls online. BI eventually found ID’s parent...