Search Results

1. HI v LX [2023] NZDT 148 (31 May 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...place by phone on 16 May 2023. Both parties participated in the hearing. Findings 13. The relevant law is misrepresentation (section 35, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017). 14. If a person enters into a contract relying upon a false statement that the other party to the contract has made, then that person is entitled to treat the statement as if it was a term of the contract that has been breached. 15. There are several essential elements to a misrepresentation: a. A...

2. Khan v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 29 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...what happened in this case. [5] The Tribunal has found the adviser allowed unlicensed persons to carry out important parts of the professional engagement in dispute, and she knew that this was occurring. The Tribunal has upheld the complaint. The Statement of Complaint [6] The Registrar filed a Statement of Complaint with the Tribunal, which set out the facts alleged in support of the complaint and information gathered by the Registrar. [7] There is a narrative where the complainant...

3. Regulatory Impact Statement Interest on money [pdf, 17 KB]

   617695 Regulatory Impact Statement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current law providing for payment of interest where there is late payment of money owing, is limited, not easily accessible, relies to some extent on judicial discretion, and fails to adequately compensate many creditors. A single, comprehensive and more widely applicable Interest on Money Claims Act is needed, with a basis for interest that reflects the commercial value of delay in payment of money owing. The proposed Act is...

4. TQ v UM & Ors [2023] NZDT 369 (2 August 2023) [pdf, 116 KB]

   ...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 369 APPLICANT TQ RESPONDENT UM SECOND RESPONDENT CM THIRD RESPONDENT FOURTH RESPONDENT HT N Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TQ obtained a jetski from UM. It had been advertised as having a fully rebuilt engine. 2. Shortly after obtaining the jetski, he took it to SN for a service and check. SN discovered rust in the engine...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 189 Haig v Carrington Farms & Ors [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...2012 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT NO 5 OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN A The plaintiff’s causes of action are struck out as having been brought in breach of the limitation period in s 142 Employment Relations Act 2000. B The first defendant’s counterclaims (except those causes of action in breach of contract for concealment of information) are struck out as having been brought in breach of the limitation period in s 142 Employment Relations Act 2000. REASONS OF THE COURT Introduc...

6. [2021] NZEmpC 90 OSS Ltd v Arthur [pdf, 264 KB]

   ...the challenge for service on 15 January 2021. [8] On 18 January 2021, the final day on which a challenge was able to be lodged within time, OSS’s lawyer contacted Mr Arthur’s lawyer asking if he was authorised to accept service of OSS’s statement of claim. This form of service was so authorised. The document was then forwarded by email the following day, 19 January 2021, at which point, Mr Arthur became aware that a challenge had been brought by OSS on a non-de novo basis....

7. Hayward v Barnardos NZ Inc (Jurisdiction) [2022] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...7, individuals have a right to ask an organisation to correct information about them if they think that information is wrong. If an organisation does not agree that the information needs correcting, the individual can ask that an agency attach a statement of correction to its records. [5] It is not disputed that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear Ms Hayward’s allegation that Barnardos has breached IPP 6. Barnardos says, however, that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to cons...

8. [2017] NZEmpC 117 Underhill v Coca-Cola Amatil NZ Ltd [pdf, 429 KB]

   ...Ltd [2016] NZERA Auckland 381. 2 Underhill v Coca-Cola Amatil (NZ) Ltd [2017] NZERA Auckland 8. 3 Abernethy v Dynea New Zealand Ltd (No 2) [2007] ERNZ 462 (EmpC). Pleadings [6] With the plaintiffs being self-represented litigants, the statement of claim which has been filed is not a detailed document. It was deemed as adequate for the purposes of the challenge. Coca-Cola has filed somewhat more elaborate pleadings. Initially, whether or not the plaintiffs were actually...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 133 2013 Dolev v Netafim Australia Pty Ltd [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...Christchurch Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). The outcome of the Authority investigation was a determination dated 17 April 2012. 1 Mr Dolev was successful to a minor degree in respect of two items of expenses and holiday pay. His other claims were dismissed. The small amount of holiday pay and expenses were to be set-off by the bringing into account of an also relatively small sum paid by Netafim to Mr Dolev by mistake. In a costs determination of the Authority...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 54 Hamon v Coromandel Independent Living Trust [pdf, 177 KB]

    ...determination dated 4 August 2009. 2 [3] Ms Hamon has filed challenges de novo against both determinations. While wages and compensation are still sought, no penalty is now claimed. Pleadings [4] The pleadings are contained in an amended statement of claim filed on 31 August 2009 and a statement of defence filed on 23 October 2009. The statement of claim, being somewhat disjointed in form, is difficult to exactly follow. However, the plaintiff, Ms Hamon, ultimately claims...