Search Results

1. [2014] NZEmpC 94 Lund South Limited v Low [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Background [1] On 7 May 2014 the plaintiff lodged a de novo challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) on a preliminary issue. 1 The context is a claim by the plaintiff that he was entitled to a bonus, subject to relevant conditions being satisfied, for the period 1 August 2003 until 7 September 2010. The preliminary issue related to whether that entitlement continued for the period 1...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 80 A Labour Inspector of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Samra Holdings Ltd T/A Te Puna Liquor Centre [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...and/or cancel licences issued pursuant to the Sale and Supply of Alcohol Act. The licences in question relate to the premises that were operated by the defendants which were places where breaches of employment standards took place. [10] The applicant believes that the present sale and purchase of each business (excluding Samra Brothers Ltd) and the subsequent new licence applications are a contrivance and an attempt to conceal the beneficiaries of the licence privilege. The appl...

3. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v Telecom NZ 4451 [2013] NZCOP 15 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...BETWEEN RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND Applicant (Rights Owner) AND TELECOM NZ 4451 Respondents BEFORE THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL WARWICK SMITH HEARING ON THE PAPERS DECISION Introduction [1] This is an application by Recording Industry Association of New Zealand Incorporated (“the Applicant”) for an order under s.122O of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 (“the Act”). The Applicant seeks an order for payment...

4. CU v QD Ltd [2022] NZDT 48 (19 May 2022) [pdf, 216 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 48 APPLICANT CU RESPONDENT QD Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. CU placed an order for 2 booklets to be printed with QD Ltd though its website. From statements on QD Ltd’s website and in emails he received from QD Ltd he expected the booklets to be delivered before Queens Birthday Weeke...

5. SC v CX [2022] NZDT 116 (2 August 2022) [pdf, 204 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 116 APPLICANT SC RESPONDENT CX The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. This matter was heard by teleconference on 9 March 2022. It was adjourned to give both parties an opportunity to provide me and each other with text messages, photographs and any other evidence or arrange for any witnesses they...

6. BW v TC [2024] NZDT 511 (31 July 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 511 APPLICANT BW RESPONDENT TC APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: TC is to pay J Ltd $1,049.50 on or before Monday 26 August 2024. Reasons: 1. BW provided CCTV footage that showed he entered into an intersection controlled by lights. He was cycling extremely slowly and was positioned at almost the cen...

7. NL v EU & TJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1589 (2 August 2021) [pdf, 102 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1589 APPLICANT AND COUNTERCLAIM RESPONDENT NL RESPONDENT AND COUNTERCLAIM APPLICANT EU RESPONDENT'S INSURER TJ Limited The Tribunal orders: NL is to pay $4,312.13 to TJ Limited by 16 August 2021. Reasons 1. On 22 April 2021 NL and EU were involved in a collision on [Road], [City]. 2. NL claim...

8. G Ltd v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 236 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 236 APPLICANT G Ltd RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. H Ltd is to pay G Ltd $17,738.76 on or before Monday 25 March 2024. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. U Ltd, which has since changed its name to H Ltd (the client), was planning to open a new restaurant. On 29 June 2023, the client accepted a fee proposal...

9. LQ v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 648 (25 October 2024) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...initial fee? b) Is LQ liable to pay the extra charges? Is LQ liable to pay the initial fee? 4. Q Ltd submitted that LQ had accepted the terms on its sign and website by conduct when he entered the carpark, and that a unilateral contract had been formed. This makes no sense. A unilateral contract (a promise in exchange for an act) would only be formed if Q Ltd promised something in return for LQ parking there, such as “Park here and we’ll give you a free ice cream”. A unilateral...

10. [2007] NZEmpC WC 24/07 Monteith v Hakansson [pdf, 19 KB]

    MONTEITH V HAKANSSON WN WC 24/07 26 September 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 24/07 WRC 21/07 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file challenge out of time BETWEEN ESTHER JOHANNA MONTEITH Plaintiff AND EDITH ANNE HAKANSSON Defendant Hearing: 18 September 2007 (Heard at Wellington (by telephone conference)) Appearances: E J Monteith (in person) E A Hakansson (in person) Judgment: 26 September 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT OF JUDGE...