Search Results

1. Rabson v Solicitor-General (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...Chairperson Dr JAG Fountain, Member Hon KL Shirley, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr ME Rabson in person Ms V McCall for defendant DATE OF HEARING: DATE OF DECISION: Heard on the papers 29 August 2018 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT STATEMENT OF CLAIM1 Introduction [1] On 3 September 2014 a Crown Counsel employed at Crown Law sent an email to a third party about Mr Rabson. Mr Rabson says the contents of the email are defamatory. The Solicitor-General asserts the email is the su...

2. [2012] NZEmpC 162 Ong & Ong trading as Pharmacy 72 v Massie [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...claimed that they should not be held responsible for costs because they had no choice but to discontinue the proceedings due to a number of matters. [4] They say it was their counsel who requested the change of name of the plaintiff in the second statement of claim from individuals to the name of the company “for tax purposes”, but the new statement of claim was rejected by me and, according to their counsel, I had been “frosty and hostile” and “most likely to rule agains...

3. LCRO 40/2021 PT v UT and RL t/a Law Firm A (28 April 2022) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...trust arose, [LAW FIRM A] recognised that they could be conflicted in continuing to act for Mr SZ and Mrs QT, and in recognition of that potential for conflict, referred both to another [City A] law firm ([Law Firm D]). [9] Mr PT prepared a draft statement of claim for filing in the High Court. Those anticipated proceedings named his client AI as plaintiff, Ms LM (Mr HT’s widow of his second marriage) as first defendant, and Mr SZ and Mrs QT as second and third defendants in thei...

4. Kropelnicki v Wellington City Council (Strike-Out) [2021] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...denies any discrimination occurred. It says Mr Kropelnicki had a fixed term tenancy which ended because the premises in which he was living were soon to be demolished. [4] On 6 August 2019, the Tribunal directed Mr Kropelnicki to file an amended statement of claim. He has yet to do so. [5] The issue determined in this decision is whether Mr Kropelnicki’s claim should be struck out because his continued failure to comply with Tribunal directions to file an amended statement of cl...

5. [2007] NZEmpC CC 20/07 O'Flynn v Southland DHB [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...Appearances: H B Rennie QC and Penelope Ryder-Lewis, Counsel for the Plaintiff J G Miles QC, Counsel for the Defendant Judgment: 2 November 2007 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] This is an application for further and better particulars of the statement of claim made by the defendant in the proceedings. Relevant principles of law [2] Regulation 11 of the Employment Court Regulations 2000 requires a statement of claim to include: • The general nature of the claim; ...

6. RM ND and DD v EQC & VERO Insurance New Zealand Ltd (substantive) [2022] CEIT-2019-0074 [pdf, 1.8 MB]

   ...[1] The property [15] Procedural background [27] Statutory and contractual framework [31] Legal principles [53] Approach to repairs [70] Issues [75] Policy exclusions [76] Statements exclusion [83] CES damage [160] Weathertightness experts’ joint report [168] Structural engineers’ joint report [171] Stonemason experts’ joint report [174] Repairs required...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 26 Premier Events Group Ltd v Beattie [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...defences are not justiciable, that is that the law does not recognise them as defences which may be pleaded to the claims. These are the same rules that apply to the striking out of any cause of action or pleading, more usually in the case of a statement of claim but, as here, where a defence is advanced. [3] To determine whether the impugned defences will fail, even if the facts supporting them are established by the second defendant, it is necessary to understand the nature of th...

8. Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 207 KB]

   1 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM1 [1] Mr Brown claims employees of Progressive Enterprises Limited2 (PEL) at a Countdown store discriminated against him and victimised him in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) as they threatened to trespass him from the store and tried to provoke him into an altercation so he could be trespassed. [2] In response to Mr Brown’s claim, PEL filed an application to strike-out the claim. The basis of the PEL’s strike-out appli...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 39 Malcolm v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 332 KB]

   ...jurisdictional issue, they had fundamentally changed their position by stating that they accepted the lawfulness of the Order.4 [8] After referring to these difficulties, the Authority concluded that it needed to address the claims raised in the amended statement of problem, and not the “proposed, intended or amended version of the claims” that were referred to in the plaintiffs’ submissions.5 [9] The Authority accordingly addressed two main issues. The first concerned whet...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 16 Gapuzan v Pratt Whitney Air New Zealand Services second interlocutory [pdf, 49 KB]

    ...12 February 2014 SECOND INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A A COUCH [1] The history of this matter is summarised in my first interlocutory judgment dated 29 August 2013.1 [2] The plaintiff took that opportunity by filing a third amended statement of claim on 17 September 2013. The defendant very quickly responded with an application to strike out parts of that statement. It is that application to strike out which is decided in this judgment. In that decision, I made an...