Search Results

1. KI & XI v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 434 (1 May 2024) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...of the contract? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 5. The terms of the written contract entered into by the parties include that except to the extent guarantees under the Consumer Guarantees Act apply, goods are stored at the sole risk and responsibility of the storer who is responsible for: “any and all theft, loss, damage to, and deterioration of the goods, and shall bear the risk of the any and all damage to the goods stored in the Space caused by flood, fire, leakage or ov...

2. Y Ltd v DT & KG [2024] NZDT 886 (17 December 2024) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...compels me to find liability for damage. 14. I have sighted registration forms signed and agreed to by DT and KG for the Units including: a. the guest registration form for their occupancy of Unit 8 which clearly provides, “I agree to be responsible for, and will pay for any damage done to the property by myself, children or animals in my care”; and b. the long stay commercial accommodation agreement for their occupancy of Unit 4 which also clearly imposes liabi...

3. Auckland Standards Committee 1 v Jindal [2025] NZLCDT 26 (8 May 2025) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...including the profession and the Tribunal, but not directly to Mr Y. When taxed with this omission, Mr Jindal attempted to say that Mr Y was included in the apology directed to his family. We consider that sort of sophistry and sidestepping of responsibility is illustrative of why we hold concerns for this practitioner’s insight and judgement. [25] Mr Jindal is a practitioner who has come to law as a second career but still has a young family to support. His wife works full t...

4. F Ltd v TI [2025] NZDT 255 (21 July 2025) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...2024 that he didn’t really have any work to do at that time. TI describes feeling that NF “was all over her like a rash.” I certainly agree that NF seemed very determined to be involved and I find that TI was trying to gently rebuff him, by her responses. c. NF portrays the meeting of 11 March 2024 as a meeting between client, designer and a builder. He described it as a “handover meeting” where the project was being handed over to him to take on. However, it is clear from t...

5. Rameka-Kere v Riley - Te Tii B 3 [2025] Māori Appellate Court MB 543 (2025 APPEAL 543) [pdf, 275 KB]

   ...kōrero a te kaitono pīra Submissions for the appellant [5] The appellant filed what we take to be submissions by email on 19 August 2025. The appellant’s email states: (1)- attention) all interested party's (2)- (subject)-applicants response to tetiib3's application, for costs (A)- hapeta directs that)-tetiib3 address this civil claim, along with That)- their other Civil claims in accordance with tikanga (3)-Along with other excluded evidence (3)- at a...

6. Nelson-Smith v Johnston - HBP2/1145 Section 1 SO Plan 9584 (2025) 125 Tākitimu MB 65 (125 TKT 65) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...the Māori Committee, such that because the beneficiaries of the Māori reservation have consented to the inclusion of the Pawhare Flats into the Māori reservation, so too have the beneficiaries of the Māori Committee. There are two points in response. First, it is not clear that the beneficiaries of the Māori reservation have consented to this outcome. For example, there has not been a comprehensive vote on this question at any of the meetings held by the Marae Committee since...

7. O'Meara v Accident Compensation Corporation (Suspension of Entitlements) [2025] NZACC 136 [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...that forced him back into an extension lumbar movement to the right side which caused his facet joint inflammation. This has now settled and as such the covered injury can now be considered cured. This was confirmed on his SPECTCT scan and his response to a CT guided cortisone injection to the affected facet joints. 4 [12] On 24 November 2023, an Initial Occupational Assessment Report by Ms Heather Mitchell, Occupational Assessor, reported Mr O’Meara as vocationally ready...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 78 Butterworth v TBA Communications Ltd [pdf, 43 KB]

   ...opportunity to be heard in relation to the application on 24 April 2012. The timeframe for notifying any opposition was 10 working days. [3] Somewhat ironically, counsel for the plaintiff responded with a request for an extension of time to file a response to the defendant’s application. [4] A telephone conference was convened today and I heard further from counsel. [5] Following discussions, Mr Ryan advised that the extension of time for filing the defendant’s memorandum...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 68 Coverall Cleaning Concepts v Atkinson [pdf, 48 KB]

   ...have been made to serve the plaintiff but that its registered office has been abandoned and that the application was sent to the Post Office box on 28 March 2013. [2] Ms Atkinson seeks an indemnity of her costs, said to have been incurred in response to the plaintiff’s proceedings, being the sum of $287.50 (including GST). This is said to have been one unit of time (I assume one hour) at the rate of $250 (plus GST). The narration in Mr Gelb’s tax invoice says that it was for ...

10. [2015] NZSSAA 021, 31 March [pdf, 31 KB]

    ...that she wanted the Ministry to explain how the back payment had been calculated – a very reasonable request. The appellant was provided with the calculation of the back payment and again asked whether the appeal could be withdrawn. [4] No response has been received from the appellant or her agent. The appeal has still not been withdrawn. In the circumstances the matter was set down for a directions hearing today at 3.30 pm. Neither the appellant nor her agent has appeared today...