Search Results

1. UC Ltd v BD Ltd [2024] NZDT 553 (9 July 2024) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...have been finalised. Therefore, they say supplies from different concrete suppliers can have an impact on colour so if a customer was asked to match the colour they would recommend going to the original supplier. Therefore, they cannot be held responsible even though the amount of oxide might be the same. They don’t know who supplied the first batch of cement for TU. BD has recipe to make product (components for the product is sourced 3rd parties) so differences have impact on colour....

2. KB v K Ltd & Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 436 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...dealing with the issue. KB declined this offer. [9] KB said that he had claimed against Q Ltd only because he had been told at one point by a K Ltd representative that Q Ltd handled K Ltd’s baggage in [City 2], and had appeared to regard Q Ltd as responsible. KB did not, however, pursue his claim against Q Ltd. The issue [10] The essential facts are not in dispute. The question for me to decide is whether KB is entitled to compensation for K Ltd’s handling of his bag and its con...

3. [2025] NZEmpC 129 VKU v PHZ (Judgment of Judge M S King, 27 June 2025) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...be served was, and seeking directions from the Court on what needs to be done in the circumstances. [17] While the Court may provide some guidance for achieving service, and it has done so in the present case through directions and minutes, the responsibility to effect 5 VKU, above n 3, at [18]. service ultimately lies with the plaintiff. This responsibility includes identifying reasonable efforts and proposed steps to be taken and explaining why service cannot be ef...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 110 Oliver v Biggs [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...compliance order at the time Mr Biggs paid. The Court was concerned about the consequences if Mr Biggs was sanctioned and ordered to pay further costs. The risk was of an on-going cycle of claims for sanctions arguably creating a disproportionate response and being contrary to the purpose of s 140(6) as described in Peter Reynolds.9 [12] On 18 March 2025, the same day Mr Biggs was granted leave to amend his statement of defence, a settlement offer was made to him on Mr Oliver’s...

5. UN v BK [2024] NZDT 650 (16 August 2024) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...didn’t ask to be done. 2. BK was not selling the vehicle in trade. He was a private seller. The law that applies to the private sale of goods is caveat emptor meaning “Buyer Beware”. The principle of caveat emptor is that the purchaser is responsible to undertake their own investigation to discover any matters they consider important before buying goods. In this case UN needed to satisfy himself, before the purchase, that the condition of the [car] met his requirements....

6. [2025] NZSSAA 19 (30 May 2025) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...between three and four months. During these visits, he sometimes worked as a tour guide and stayed with one of his daughters. 6. XXXX travelled to New Zealand in February 2024 and applied for NZS on 15 March 2024. On his application form, in response to Question 15 “Do you usually live in New Zealand?”, XXXX marked “No” rather than “Yes”. At the time of application, he intended to return to Germany on 18 April 2024 to rejoin his wife, which he did. 7. The Ministry de...

7. C Ltd v HK [2025] NZDT 144 (24 March 2025) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...$40,000 because HK did not give sufficient notice to allow it to find a replacement [medical professional] before her agreed start date. 4. The Applicant has reduced its claim by $10,000 to come within the Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction. HK’s response 5. HK says that she entered the contract due to a misrepresentation made by CT. She says that he was not suitable to mentor her and help her increase her skills because his registration had been cancelled and he was prevented from...

8. National Standards Committee 2 v Tennet [2025] NZLCDT 28 (16 June 2025) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...the wrongdoing. This, coupled 5 Always accepting a lawyer’s right to vigorously defend a charge with which he disagrees. 6 Hart v Auckland Standards Committee 1 of the New Zealand Law Society [2013] 3 NZLR 103. 5 with acceptance of responsibility for the misconduct, may indicate that a lesser penalty than striking off is sufficient to protect the public in the future. [188] For the same reason, the practitioner's previous disciplinary history may also assume consid...

9. NF v B Ltd [2025] NZDT 227 (17 July 2025) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...acting with reasonable skill and care should offer to do so. 18. B Ltd says that NF steadfastly refused to accept its advice that he was unable to travel and by the time he accepted this, check-in had closed. However, I cannot see how NF’s response to his own inability to travel impacted B Ltd’s ability to check in the family. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 19. B Ltd says that groups may opt not to be separated. While parties may have a preference to travel together,...

10. Colin Carruthers QC: Biography [pdf, 34 KB]

    ...barristers as he has led high profile defence and prosecutions cases throughout his career. His legal repertoire is extensive. It includes substantial experience in commercial litigation, particularly in cases concerning directors’ and auditors’ responsibilities. He has also had significant experience in criminal work, both prosecution and defence, including Serious Fraud Office prosecutions, tax prosecutions, securities prosecutions and other regulatory prosecutions....