Search Results

1. VM v ND & HB LCRO 249/2012 (30 November 2015) [pdf, 329 KB]

   ...review hearing, Mr YK also went to some lengths to take issue with the dates referred to by Mr CN4 on which certain events occurred,5 and other responses by, or on behalf of Mr ND, with which Mr VM and Mr YK take issue. They argue that, as the statements are untrue (in other words, not accepted by them) they evidence dishonesty on Mr ND’s part. The spuriousness of this submission is readily apparent. [20] Mr VM’s submissions are directed at supporting the desired outcome of this...

2. Sax v Commissioner of Police (Strike-Out – Discrimination) [2022] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey MNZM, Member Ms S Stewart, Member REPRESENTATION: Ms J Sax in person Mr R May for defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 31 August 2022 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM - DISCRIMINATION1 INTRODUCTION [1] In January 2015 Janine Sax filed a discrimination claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal (Tribunal) claiming she had been subject to family status and disability discrimination by the New Ze...

3. [2014] NZEmpC 8 Nelson v Katavich [pdf, 49 KB]

   ...agreed that disclosure could only be finalised after amended pleadings had been filed. I set a timetable for that to be done and directed that all parties were to respond to the requests for disclosure within 5 working days after service of the statement of defence to the amended statement of claim. 1 [2013] NZERA Christchurch 35. [8] In the course of that conference, I was informed that there were parallel proceedings betwe...

4. DZ v LU & IW Ltd [2024] NZDT 469 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 469 APPLICANT DZ FIRST RESPONDENT LU SECOND RESPONDENT IW Ltd The Tribunal orders: IW Ltd is to pay $3071.55 to DZ on or before 2 July 2024; and The claim against LU is dismissed. Reasons 1. IW Ltd was the lessee in a commercial property owned by DZ. In late 2022, IW Ltd sold its business and the lease was assigned to the new business owner. 2. The parties’ solicitors reconciled...

5. Re Dunstan (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2023] NZHRRT 34 [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...BY TANYA DUNSTAN AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: Ms Sarah Eyre, Chairperson REPRESENTATION: Ms Dunstan, in person The intended defendant was not heard DATE OF DECISION: 13 October 2023 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL THAT INTENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING1 [1] On 19 April 2023, Ms Dunstan presented for filing in the Tribunal a statement of claim (on the official claim form) purportedly filed under s 98 of the Privacy Act 2020 (the Act). [2] The...

6. [2019] NZEmpC 13 Rayner v Director-General of Health [pdf, 281 KB]

   ...OF JUDGE B A CORKILL: (Application for leave to file a challenge out of time) Introduction [1] This judgment deals with an application for leave to bring a challenge out of time; that application was made immediately after a statement of claim relating to an earlier challenge which had been filed by Ms Amanda Rayner was served on the Director-General of Health (the Director-General heads the Ministry of Health; it is appropriate in this judgment to refer to the de...

7. [2015] NZEmpC 62 Dynamic Meats 2014 v Hodges Allen [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...[6] Before the Authority, Ms Rebecca Hodges and Ms Tui Allen (the applicants before the Authority) claimed that they had each been unjustifiably dismissed from their employment with Dynamic Meats at Hastings. The Authority consolidated both claims for one investigation meeting. However, Dynamic Meats did not communicate with the Authority or participate in any way in the Authority's investigation meeting which was held in Napier on 30 September 2014. [7] The Authority found...

8. NG v THZ [2013] NZIACDT 69 (22 October 2013) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...or behaved in a misleading manner, and breached the Code of Conduct in an unspecified way. [7] The Registrar referred the complaint to the Tribunal based on the grounds identified by the complainant. However the Registrar did so in the form of a Statement of Complaint, which did not identify material facts that could justify any of those grounds. [8] The Tribunal has determined there is no foundation for any of the grounds of complaint, or for a finding of wrongdoing on the part of the...

9. [2018] NZEmpC 116 Hollinshead v Davey [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...file their challenge was filed on 13 June 2018 and, by memorandum dated 29 June 2018, the parties advised the Court that Ms Hollinshead agreed to the extension of time. [7] The extension of time was granted and Mr Davey and CNR Investments’ statement of claim was filed by email on 10 July 2018. [8] Ms Hollinshead attempted to file a statement of defence on 16 July 2018, which included her counter-claim. She was advised that she would have to file a separate challenge; she c...

10. HH & HT v WT Ltd [2023] NZDT 22 (28 February 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

    ...they ordered their first round of food, that any more food would incur an additional cost and only drinks were bottomless. At the time, the terms and conditions did not set out whether the bottomless brunch was limited to drinks. 2. HH and HT claim WT Ltd breached the Fair Trading Act 1986. HH and HT also claim WT Ltd breached the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 because the food portions were too small and the standard drinks did not contain enough alcohol. 3. HH and HT claim $1,99...