Search Results

1. Montgomery [2010] NZWHT Auckland 32 [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...Section 49 of the Act provides that claimants may apply to the Chair seeking a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the eligibility criteria within 20 working days of receiving notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached information. The letter from Nigel Mon...

2. BO v XTT [2012] NZIACDT 31 (28 June 2012) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...professional duties as a licensed immigration adviser. [2] The professional engagement arose when Mr BO needed a variation to his work permit, as he wanted to work for a new employer. [3] He says Mr XTT met with him briefly, and gave him a blank form to sign. Mr XTT failed to tell him that he could not take up work with a new employer until Immigration New Zealand processed the application. Mr XTT delayed filing the application, and did not keep in touch with him. [4] Mr BO took...

3. LCRO 2/2019 RCN and OCN as Trustees v MA, JS, LB and GD (27 May 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...that trustee may, if the circumstances permit, appoint an attorney to act in his or her stead. [26] The Committee noted that “no advice appears to have been sought by the complainants regarding the Construction Contracts Act when the Trust was formed”.5 It further noted, that as one of the Trustees of the Trust was a company of which the firm’s partners were directors, it was reasonable for Mr LB to expect that Mr and Mrs CN would contact the firm to discuss any proposals that...

4. Vivash v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZHRRT 16 [pdf, 282 KB]

   ...decision is to be cited as Vivash v Accident Compensation Corporation [2020] NZHRRT 16.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2020] NZHRRT 16 2 INDEX INTRODUCTION [1] THE EVIDENCE [9] The back injuries of 1982, 1985 and 2002 [9] The requests by Mr Vivash for access to his files [18] ACC document retention policy [26] Destruction of the 1985 claim file [27] The failure to provide the weekly compensation information [28] Comment on the ACC document retention policy whi...

5. [2014] NZEmpC 156 Rolling Thunder Motor Company Ltd v Kennedy [pdf, 60 KB]

   ...determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) brought by the plaintiff on 29 March 2012. The Authority determined it had no jurisdiction to deal with what it described as an unpaid loan. It stated that the plaintiff should bring its claim in another jurisdiction. 1 [2] The defendant now applies for an order striking out the proceeding for want of prosecution. The Court’s jurisdiction to do so derives from reg 6(2)(a)(ii) of the Employment Court Regulation...

6. GT v TJ LCRO 10 / 2011 (20 January 2012) [pdf, 57 KB]

   ...LCRO 10/2011 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Taranaki Standards Committee BETWEEN MR GT of [North Island] Applicant AND MR TJ of [North Island] Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] Complaints to the New Zealand Law Society were made by Mr GT (t...

7. QI v PH & DN [2021] NZDT 1300 (10 February 2021) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...arrival to or departure from the common area – is a prohibited activity...” (At paragraph [112].) 17. In that case, the Court nevertheless declined to grant the injunction sought prohibiting parking in the common area (partly as this was an application to have an order without a hearing of the arguments, and the Court decided the arguments should be heard). 18. Clause 11 of the Lease provides that the common area driveway is for access only. I therefore find that PH and DN are...

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

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2017] NZDT 998 BETWEEN ER APPLICANT AND UI LTD RESPONDENT Date of Order: 16 February 2017 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] Mr ER paid $6737.00 in fees to study a course in web development at UI Ltd. He signed an ‘application/enrolment’ form on 17 April...

9. Waitangi Tribunal bibliography 2020 Part 1 [pdf, 367 KB]

   ...information and insight into Crown-Maori relations from 1840 to the present day. This version of the bibliography is complete until the end of 2011. As we finish our large district historical inquiries and move our focus to contemporary and kaupapa claims it will continue to be updated to include further reports and evidence produced as part of our ongoing inquiry programme. Official Tribunal reports can already be viewed on our website soon after they are released. It is intended...

10. AB v CD Ltd [2022] NZDT 87 (23 June 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 87 APPLICANT AB RESPONDENT CD Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In early 2021, AB conditionally agreed to buy the property at (property address).The real estate agent organised a building inspection report to be completed by CD Limited (“CDL”), to assist AB in meeting conditions...