Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 231Aurecon New Zealand Limited v Dowlut [pdf, 251 KB]

   ...respect of it.19 This claim was considered to be misconceived in law and unsupported by the evidence.20 [28] It is against that background that I must consider the application for security for costs now made by Aurecon, as well as Ms Dowlut’s response to it. Relevant principles [29] There is no express provision in the Act to make an order for security for costs, but it has been accepted in numerous cases that the Court has power to order security for costs and to stay proceedi...

2. Smith v Accident Compensation Corporation (Interest on weekly compensation) [2024] NZACC 139 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...position on a particular issue may be amounts to a decision that can be reviewed. This to my mind would be an intolerable situation not contemplated by the clear words of the legislation, and would simply result in the respondent avoiding making any response in certain situations, which would not be a sensible outcome either. [18] I note further that the present issue is almost identical to that considered by His Honour Judge Beattie in his decision of 20 November 2012 … where he...

3. Windle v The Island Grocer Ltd [2025] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 506 KB]

   ...care or for getting a COVID-19 test. In her press release of 17 August 2021 the Prime Minister said, “if you undertake these activities please wear a mask when you leave the house”. [4] At 11.59 pm on 17 August 2021 the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Alert Level Requirements) Order (No 9) 2021 (Order) came into force. The Order was made pursuant to the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020. Section 24 of that Act empowered any enforcement officer (including a police const...

4. [2025] NZREADT 22 - ZD & NK v Liu & Zareian (18 June 2025) [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...causal connection between their unsatisfactory conduct and the claimed loss. The unconsented works were not 9 significant. Indeed, they were minor in nature. They did not justify cancellation of the agreement, which was a disproportionate response to non-disclosure. [41] Furthermore, the licensees contend a 50 per cent reduction in the claimed losses would be appropriate. The purchasers are not entitled to the full amount of the claimed losses because they contributed to...

5. Director of Proceedings v Health New Zealand – Te Whatu Ora [2025] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 424 KB]

   ...postoperative care and advice” will be reviewed. BREACH OF RIGHT 4(1) OF THE CODE 66. Right 4(1) of the Code states: “Every consumer has the right to have services provided with reasonable care and skill”. 67. The DHB held ultimate responsibility for ensuring that processes were in place to enable the aggrieved person to receive care of an appropriate standard. 68. In addition, the DHB had a duty to comply with the New Zealand Health and Disability (CORE) Standards tha...

6. 10.8 In Court Media Guidelines 2016

   ...a copy of the application to the complainant and obtain his or her views about it. In relation to District Court hearings and trials which do not involve a jury, the application must be made as soon as practicable after the hearing is scheduled. 7. Response to application Within three working days of receipt of an application, any counsel or party receiving it must notify the registrar, the applicant and the other parties in writing that: the application is not opposed or the application is...

   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. 10.0 Appendices

7. NE v BO & TH [2025] NZDT 126 (10 March 2025) [pdf, 315 KB]

   ...October 2023, paragraph [10]. 2 Todd on Torts 8th ed at 22.9. 3 See Holderness v Gosling [1975] 2 NZLR 46 at 50, and on appeal Dobson v Holderness [1975] 2 NZR 749 (CA.) 4 Todd on Torts supra 10.2.06(2) CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 7 responsibility for operations conducted on their land which, by their very nature, carry an obvious risk of harm to neighbouring property, and in such cases the occupier remains liable for nuisances created by independent contract. Where danger is...

8. Russell v Accident Compensation Corporation (Personal Injury) [2025] NZACC 104 (27 June 2025) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...neck pain”. [25] Dr Lonergan is asked specific questions and replies on 2 October 2023. She explained whiplash is a term used to describe sudden movement of the head. It is not an injury as such but a description of an action. [26] In response to these two questions – “Is the injury as described above [sic] be reasonable to cause a whiplash?” and “How would a whiplash type injury cause an injury to the C2/3 facet joint?” - she refers to her explanation of what a whi...

9. Malcolm v Hahipene - Te Karaka 1B2B1 (2024) 318 Waiariki MB 24 (318 WAR 24) [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...defect. He says that a failure to apply within the time limit of three months is not fatal and cites Flutey - Papatupu 3B2B Section 1 (2023) 466 Aotea MB 212 (466 AOT 212) where confirmation was sought and granted outside the initial period. [19] In response, Mr Koning submits that the Court cannot exercise its discretion under s 151(2) of the Act for the following reasons: (a) The Trustees are not parties to the 2006 agreement. (b) The Trustees have not sought leave to file out of...

10. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Deliu [2016] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 72 KB]

    ...Auckland District Law Society had acted 6 inconsistently in not seeking to investigate the behaviour of Mr Godinet in relation to this incident. [17] In summary, Mr Laubscher accepted that Mr Godinet did not seem to provide a tempered response to Mr Orlov and the practitioner, but described his conduct as having been provoked. He described Mr Godinet’s behaviour as a minor matter, with the focus being on what he described as the “invasion” of the Committee meeting....