Search Results

1. 1.-Full-List-of-Fee-Changes-23-July.pdf [pdf, 366 KB]

   ...cross-appeal to the court under any enactment $540 $702 3 Filing any other initiating document (as defined in regulation 4), unless a different filing fee is prescribed for that document elsewhere in the fees table $1,350 $1,755 4 Filing a statement of claim between defendants $110 $143 5 Filing an amended statement of claim $110 $143 6 Interlocutory application (a) without notice (b) on notice relating to a proceeding to which item 2, 3, 46 or 48 applies (c) with notice (a)...

2. Budget 2024 Full-List-of-Fee-Changes.pdf [pdf, 369 KB]

   ...cross-appeal to the court under any enactment $540 $702 3 Filing any other initiating document (as defined in regulation 4), unless a different filing fee is prescribed for that document elsewhere in the fees table $1,350 $1,755 4 Filing a statement of claim between defendants $110 $143 5 Filing an amended statement of claim $110 $143 6 Interlocutory application (a) without notice (b) on notice relating to a proceeding to which item 2, 3, 46 or 48 applies (c) with notice...

3. [2015] NZEmpC 84 Robinson v Pacific Seals New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...on which the election is made, to be sufficiently particularised so as to give full advice to both the Court and the other party of the issues involved; and  the relief sought. [15] I pause to note that in the present case the applicant’s statement of claim made it clear that he was not seeking a hearing de novo, and identified limited parts of the Authority’s determination to which his election related. Six alleged errors of law and/or fact were specified and three questi...

4. Brown v Otago Polytechnic and Progressive Enterprises (Recusal Application) [2014] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...summons a witness to a Tribunal hearing under any circumstances. Despite the fact that the Appellant has fulfilled all the requirements of reply via the Application of Reply, Memorandum and Submission, and Applications Opposed to Strike Out, Mr Haines claims that the Appellant has failed to comply with the Statement of Reply. [15.3] It is “discriminatory and unethical” for the Tribunal to “feign” that Mr Brown could “win out” in a paper war against two experienced lawyers:...

5. [2020] NZEmpC 24 CBA v ONM [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...6 High Court Amendment Rules 2019, r 11. 7 See Appendix A. 8 I utilise the step reference adopted by Mr Henderson in his schedule. [17] The question relates to a fair allowance for the preparation of the statement of claim. [18] The matter was commenced by the filing of a statement of problem in the Employment Relations Authority; the proceeding was then removed to the Court. Then it was necessary for a statement of claim to be filed in th...

6. Privacy Act 1993 and Privacy Act 2020

   A   B   C   D   E   F   G   H   I   J   K   L   M   N   O   P   Q   R   S   T   U   V   W   X   Y   Z A Access order - application under Privacy Act 2020, s 104 to enforce access direction made under s 92 – whether access direction made against legally recognisable entity so that access order could be enforced – Privacy Act 2020, ss 92 and 104 Sheehan v Bad

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Human rights >
   3. Decisions - Index

7. [2010] NZEmpC 76 Trans Otway Ltd v Hall [pdf, 38 KB]

   ...expired on 11 January 2010. The applicant took no steps within that time. [5] On 22 January 2010, counsel for the applicant filed a document entitled “Application for leave Regulation 13A Employment Court Regulations 2000” accompanied by a statement of claim. Two orders were sought: a) An order “Granting leave to the Applicant to make an election out of time” which I have treated as an application for an order extending time pursuant to s219 of the Act; or b) “In the a...

8. 2018 NZSSAA 007 (31 January 2018) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...being from 18 May 2009 to 21 February 2010, and the second from 22 November 2010 to 19 May 2013. The Ministry’s case is that, during the respective periods of time, each appellant was overpaid a total of $21,039.22. The basis for the Ministry’s claim that there were 2 overpayments arises from its claim that the appellants were engaged in a trading operation that produced profits, which had not been notified to the Ministry. In addition the male appellant was paid for s...

9. JT & QL v SQ & TQ [2024] NZDT 855 (10 September 2024) [pdf, 126 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 855 APPLICANT JT APPLICANT QL RESPONDENT SQ SECOND RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: The claim by JT and QL is dismissed. TQ is added as a respondent party as she is also the owner of the house. Reasons 1. The Applicants were looking to buy their first home. They inspected the Respondents’ house and a conditional...

10. ER v UI Ltd [2017] NZDT 998 (16 February 2017) [pdf, 130 KB]

    ...provided for in the CGA are objective tests, therefore it is the standard of the lecturer’s English and his ability to teach effectively that must be considered in evidence, rather than whether ER understood him. [6] Mr ER has provided a statement from another student in the class, A (although it is simply type-written with no written name or signature), who states that the teaching made subjects “difficult to understand because there was no continuity to objectives” and tha...