Search Results

1. HLL Ltd v RO [2018] NZDT 1133 (6 July 2018) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...up at the roof ends under the ridge flashings, no foam closure strips, and flashings either missing or incorrectly installed. [13] The gutters were also identified as requiring work, but as HLL did not proceed with this work, they could not be responsible for this. HLL also pointed out that the reports noted loose material in the gutters, which, if allowed to block them, will cause overflow. Were the failures substantial? [14] Where a breach is established, a customer is entitl...

2. [2021] NZEnvC 061 Upper Clutha Environmental Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 1.4 MB]

   ...reserved and timetable directions will issue in due course. REASONS Int1'0duction [1] Th.is decision follows from Decision 2.4 1 on 'Topic 2: Rural Landscapes', in the review ('PDP') of the Queenstown Lakes District Plan. Responses to Decision 2.4 Mt/1·on ONF [2] Allenby Farm Limited ('Allenby') appealed aspects of the mapping of the Mt Iron Outstanding Natural Feature ('ONF'). Decision 2.1 determined that the planning map relevant t...

3. MVDT Annual Report 2019-2020 [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...attend hearings via audiovisual link. In March and April 2020, it became apparent that the Tribunal needed to increase its use of audiovisual technology to allow it to continue to operate and hear claims while Covid-19 restrictions were in place. In response, the Ministry of Justice staff who support the Tribunal all committed to keeping the Tribunal operational and the Ministry of Justice equipped those staff with devices that enable them to work from home. Although those changes could...

4. Bradbury v Police (Mootness) [2020] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...Privacy Act 1993 for correspondence concerning him between Police and the banks. On 17 February 2017 Police responded to Mr Bradbury's request by providing: 4.1 a copy of the request form sent to various New Zealand banks; and 4.2 a copy of the responses received from each bank. 5. A copy of the covering letter and request form is annexed to these submissions. 6. Police refused Mr Bradbury's request for information about why his banking records were sought, in reliance on s 2...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 32 Kocaturk v Zara’s Turkish Ltd [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...employment relationship problem the Authority considered was not about discrimination. 5 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 112. 6 Employment Relations Act 2000, s 114. [19] Ms Sharma’s response was that the issue was more nuanced than appeared in the pleadings and amended pleadings are required. She submitted the matters before the Authority could encompass claims of discrimination of the sort referred to in ss 104 and 1...

6. BORA Equal Pay Amendment Bill [pdf, 291 KB]

   ...individual employer, pay equity relates to systemic social issues and takes account of historical discrimination against an occupation. We recognise that it may be unfair for employers to be held liable for a longer period of back pay, and therefore held responsible for historical societal inequality. The limit on back pay balances the employees’ grievance with the impact on employers. c. The gradually increasingly back pay period following commencement balances issues aris...

7. [2018] NZSSAA 59 (19 November 2018) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...the appellant said in his evidence. We are satisfied his account is accurate, and the elements we have identified were not put in contention in cross-examination. The contentious elements in the evidence were mainly directed at the Ministry’s response to the appellant’s situation. The decision has some relevance to that, as it appears the Ministry considered it should not treat the appellant’s situation as an emergency. For the reasons we discuss, we do not agree with the Mini...

8. BD and NQ v R Co Ltd [2021] NZDT 1354 (12 February 2021) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...with reasonable care and skill? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 • Was RCL’s advice with respect to the matters raised by the pre-settlement inspection and the vendor’s undertakings given with reasonable care and skill? • Was RCL responsible for the late settlement (after 4pm) and if so, what remedy is available to NQ? • Were any actual losses relating to delay moving into the property reasonably foreseeable as likely to result from any failure of CGA guarantee?...

9. LCRO 172/2020 CA v PL (14 October 2021) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...amended settlement dates. [29] He repeats his assertion that settlement could have proceeded under Level 4 conditions and consequently there was no need to defer settlement. [30] He asks that Ms PL’s fee be reduced by $750. Ms PL’s response [31] In response, Ms PL provided some more detail relating to the difficulties she encountered in acting for Mr CA, and completing his sale and purchase. 8 At [21]. 9 At [30]. 10 At [36]. 11 CA application for review, Part...

10. DG Ltd v ID Ltd [2020] NZDT 1441 (24 August 2020) [pdf, 215 KB]

    ...“consideration” for the contract. 6. The parties have different versions of the events. I have little doubt about each party’s honesty but they cannot both be remembering correctly, and all the discussions were oral. Therefore, it is my responsibility to decide on the balance of probabilities which views are more likely to be correct. 7. It is clear that the request by ID Ltd to use the water on DG Ltd’s property was made early in the day. It is also clear that permissi...