Search Results

1. [2021] NZEmpC 204 Ling v Super Cuisine Group Ltd [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...JUDGMENT OF JUDGE KATHRYN BECK [1] The applicant, Mr Ling, seeks leave to extend time to file a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority).1 In the Authority, Mr Ling was unsuccessful in his claim that he was constructively dismissed from his employment with the respondent, Super Cuisine Group Ltd (Super Cuisine). He was, however, successful in establishing that he was owed wage and holiday pay arrears of $3,801.60. The Authority...

2. EJ v HL & BL [2020] NZDT 1330 (10 June 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1330 APPLICANT EJ RESPONDENT HL and BL The Tribunal orders: 1. HL and BL are to pay to EJ the sum of $4,139.89 on or before 1 July 2020. Reasons 1. In December 2017, Ms J purchased a horsefloat from Dr and Mrs L for $5,300.00 that has subsequently been discovered to have safety and maintenance issues. 2. Ms J has f...

3. KH v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 166 (5 February 2024) [pdf, 238 KB]

   ...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...

4. N Ltd v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 732 (5 December 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 732 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by N Ltd against D Ltd is dismissed. REASONS 1. During October 2024, Mr T of the Applicant, N Ltd, discussed buying a [SUV] vehicle from the Respondent, D Ltd. The first [SUV] discussed was sold to another customer of the Respondent for just under $42,000.00. Later...

5. LCRO 117/2017 LA v KB (11 December 2019) [pdf, 157 KB]

   LCRO 117/2017 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN LA Applicant AND KB Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed Introduction [1] Mr LA has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee)...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 203 Fredericks v VIP Frames and Trusses Ltd [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...by an inexperienced employee. The 19 mm nail pierced the fluid sack around Mr Fredericks’s heart, a lung and liver. [2] The circumstances which followed the injury led to Mr Fredericks resigning from his employment with VIP. He commenced a claim in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) claiming he was constructively dismissed and had suffered disadvantage as a result of the unjustifiable actions of VIP. After a two- day investigation meeting the Authority held tha...

7. Heta v Ministry of Social Development [2013] NZHRRT 8 [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...Code of Conduct for Obtaining Information under Section 11 Social Security Act 1964 (the Code of Conduct) which requires (inter alia) that when seeking information or documents about a beneficiary the Ministry’s investigating officer must first request the information or documents from the beneficiary; and [3.2] Failing to correct personal information held about Ms Heta. [4] Ms Heta seeks a declaration that the Ministry interfered with her privacy in the two respects alleged. She al...

8. UH v KT [2017] NZDT 1500 (12 April 2017) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...agree that the fence needs replacing. UH and KT have served on each other a notice and cross notice in accordance with the Fencing Act 1978 (the Act). They have been unable to reach an agreement regarding the fence between their properties. 5. UH claims the sum of $2,288.00 for half the cost of a new fence between the properties. 6. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. Is UH responsible for damaging or destroying part of the fence? b. Is the existing fence an adequate fen...

9. Bevan v Peakman - Succession to Kathleen Paikea and Hemi Wharepaikea [2024] Chief Judge's MB 212 (2024 CJ 212) [pdf, 360 KB]

   ...otherwise be entitled to succeed on the death of that person’s parents or either of them. (3) Every order under subsection (2) of this section shall have effect notwithstanding anything in section 19 of the Adoptions Act 1955. Additional information: During the course of notifying parties of the application, James Paikea (9 February 2021 sent an email of his views of the applicants claim. On 3 February 2021, Angeline Peakman filed an affidavit (email form) disputing the applic...

10. [2022] NZACC 17 - Bellamy v ACC (27 January 2022) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...Hearing: On the papers Appearances: Mr Bellamy in person Mr T Gee for the respondent Judgment: 27 January 2022 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Costs Claimed by the Appellant at Review] ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant appeals against the decision of the Reviewer dated 4 November 2019 in which the Reviewer refused to award costs to the ap...