Search Results

1. [2024] NZEmpC 125 Cronin-Lampe v Minister of Education [pdf, 607 KB]

   ...Cronin-Lampe; damages totalling $967,094 were awarded in favour of Mr Cronin-Lampe. See Cronin-Lampe (No 2), above n 2, at [456]–[457]. History [3] The litigation has a complex history. It is necessary to summarise the key events. [4] Statements of problem were originally filed in the Authority in January 2013.6 In April 2014, Mr and Mrs Cronin-Lampe filed further statements of problem which raised contractual and tortious causes of action in the Authority which we...

2. Solomon v Johnson - Te Mata E3 Block (2017) 139 Waikato Maniapoto MB 240 (139 WMN 240) [pdf, 508 KB]

   ...the section from the Te Mata E3 block, however it was agreed that the partition application would be heard once the Court made a decision in regard to the above issues. [9] The respondents raised a preliminary issue regarding the applicants’ statement of claim and the scope of the Court’s enquiry. I will address this issue first before moving to consider the evidence and the substantive issues. Scope of Court’s enquiry [10] Mr Bidois, for the respondents, argued that the sc...

3. BI v O Inc [2024] NZDT 725 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...since 2022, O Inc has not been acting in a professional way. He says that their flyer states they are a “professional association” and that this is not true (or at least no longer true since 2022). 4. I find that the proper reading of the statement in the flyer is that O Inc is an association for professionals who are [redacted] practitioners. The use of the word “professional” is not an adjective to describe how the association will conduct itself. 5. Nonetheless, I have c...

4. GO & KO v MD [2025] NZDT 10 (16 April 2025) [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...ownership. 5. To the extent that the Tribunal can make such a direction, the Tribunal directs Crown Law Trust of the New Zealand Government to refund to GO the sum of $450.00 that she paid into the [redacted] Court on 28 November 2022. 6. GO’ claim for a refund of the civil enforcement fee she paid to the Ministry of Justice ($600.00) is struck out because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make such an order. 7. MD’s counterclaim is dismissed. REASONS 1. Th...

5. Handy v New Zealand Fire Service Commission (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 351 KB]

   ...Dr SJ Hickey MNZM, Member Mr BK Neeson JP, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr J Handy in person Mr GC Davenport defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 26 June 2018 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT PART OF STATEMENT OF CLAIM1 Introduction These proceedings under the Human Rights Act were brought against the New Zealand Fire Service Commission (NZFSC) by Jarvis-Montrel Handy in March 2016. Mr Handy’s claim concerns two complaints agai...

6. NM & TX & KC [2024] NZDT 758 (13 November 2024) [pdf, 122 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 758 APPLICANT NM APPLICANT TX RESPONDENT KC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NM and TX own a home in [City] which shares a boundary with the home owned by KC. In July 2022 NM and TX say they were approached by KC’s father who also lives at the adjacent property. They say [KC’s father] noted con...

7. HB- & UB v KN [2023] NZDT 49 (9 February 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 49 APPLICANT HB APPLICANT UB RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HB and UB purchased a tuktuk vehicle from KN for $13,500.00. They purchased the vehicle on the basis that it had a current warrant of fitness (“WOF”) and was “road legal”. 2. Shortly after purchase,...

8. [2018] NZEmpC 63 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 342 KB]

   ...with this contention.3 [12] By this stage, Mr Lorigan was self-represented. Because it was apparent that he would have difficulty in re-pleading the removed matters, and on the acquiescence of Mr Towner, counsel for Infinity, I ruled that the statements of problems and statements of reply regarding the proceedings in the Authority would now be pleadings in this Court. (footnotes omitted) [5] I propose to deal with the various applications in the order in which they arose. Comp...

9. [2021] NZEmpC 213 Baylis v Chief Executive of the Porirua City Council [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Porirua City Council [2021] NZERA 184 (Member Cheyne). [3] The timeframe within which Ms Baylis was entitled to challenge that determination as of right expired on 1 June 2021.2 [4] On 2 June 2021, the Court received three copies of a statement of claim from Ms Baylis’s representatives, CultureSafe NZ Ltd. However, no copies of the Authority determination were enclosed, and the filing fee was not paid, as required. [5] Accordingly, there were two difficulties with...

10. UH v KC [2023] NZDT 495 (1 November 2023) [pdf, 155 KB]

    ...going for years to come”. 5. If so, what loss can UH show she has incurred that she is entitled to be compensated for? Did KC misrepresent the [vehicle]? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 6. A misrepresentation occurs when a seller makes a false statement of fact that the buyer relies on and is induced to enter into the contract on the basis that the statement was true. 7. UH said that from the advertisement she concluded that the engine started and ran well. She formed that v...