Search Results

1. ABR v ZYN and ZYM [2013] NZDT 35 (20 May 2013) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 20 May 2013 Referee: Referee Edison ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZYN Ltd shall pay ABR Ltd the sum of $5,442.56 by 4pm on 3 June 2013. The claim against ZYM Ltd is dismissed. Facts [1] LG owns and runs a dairy in [a place] with his wife. The business is operated through their company, ABR Ltd. On Wednesday 12 December 2012, the business premises were forcibly broken in...

2. A Nair v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 32 (19 March 2014 ) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...residence visa. [2] The adviser was acting for him; she did not lodge the application until his current visa had expired. The result was Immigration New Zealand could not consider his application. [3] The complainant says he provided all the information requested. In addition, a staff member in the adviser’s practice told him the adviser had a relationship with Immigration New Zealand that guaranteed his application would be successful. [4] The adviser says the complainant failed to...

3. Ly v Navarette-Scholes [2015] NZIACDT 16 (06 March 2015) [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...processing complaints. The result has been the Registrar now investigates and evaluates complaints, and then lodges a statement of complaint. The statement of complaint now identifies potential grounds where the Registrar is in a position to lodge information supporting the grounds, and identifies any wider grounds the complainant advanced for which the Registrar did not find support. Formerly the Registrar gave the Tribunal notice of the complaint as presented by the complainant. [5] Th...

4. RH v LV LCRO 189 / 2011 (25 September 2012) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...considered all of the evidence now before me, I am far from persuaded that the Practitioner’s failure to arrange for an instructing solicitor was a calculated act, or for any nefarious purpose. There are a number of reasons for the views I have formed after careful consideration. [35] The initial contact by the Applicant was within a short time after his wife’s death. The Applicant had acted for the Applicant for some 25 years and it cannot have been unexpected that in such...

5. [2013] NZEmpC 9 Gini v Strugess [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...her to pay the defendant $4,500 in costs. There was no cross-challenge but the defendant seeks to uphold the Authority’s award. [2] By consent, it was agreed between the parties that no evidence would be heard but the hearing would take the form of the parties’ representatives presenting oral submissions on the papers before the Court. 1 [2012] NZERA Wellington 52. [3] The background facts are complex but there is no need...

6. Stock v Morris - Wainui 2D2B (2012) 41 Taitokerau MB 121 (41 TTK 121) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] This judgment concerns an application under s 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) to determine ownership of a cottage on Māori freehold land. It is a contest between Mariao Stock, an owner in the land, and her former partner, Rex Morris, a non-owner. Mariao claims ownership of the cottage and is supported by her fellow owners. Rex paid for the construction of the cottage and claims a monetary interest. There is no real evidential dispute....

7. [2014] NZEmpC 76 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 52 KB]

   ...Bruce Stewart QC has appeared with Mr Nicholson this morning for the plaintiff, Mr Stewart being recently brought into the matter. He, having considered the proceedings, has indicated that the plaintiff wishes to file a third amended statement of claim. [2] This third amended statement of claim, which has been handed up in a draft or proposed draft form this morning, effectively discontinues the proceedings against the second defendant, Jacob Roest and the third defendant...

8. Auckland Standards Committee v Comeskey [2010] NZLCDT 19 [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...facts: 30.1 Mr Comeskey had raised the issue of calling a milk powder expert with the trial Judge in Chambers during the course of cross-examination of Crown witnesses. 30.2 The backpack and scales were brought to Court during the trial at the request of Mr Comeskey so he could examine them. This was prior to Detective McKay giving evidence. Accordingly Mr Comeskey knew the backpack was at the Court and was available. 30.3 When Detective McKay gave evidence about which Mr...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 177 Kereru Investments Ltd v Meads [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...$9,175 plus filing fees. The statement of claim was filed by Mr Scott Guthrie who the Authority noted was one of two directors of the plaintiff company. The other was Ms Michelle Guthrie. [2] In a minute dated 27 June 2013, Chief Judge Colgan requested what is commonly referred to as a “good faith report” pursuant to s 181 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The report was sought on the basis that the determination had recorded a failure by the plaintiff to par...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 106 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 94 KB]

    ...if they are relevant. The plaintiff says that to the extent that the head of privilege claimed is litigation privilege, documents which may have attracted litigation privilege in proceedings between the defendant and the plaintiff’s former employer about issues associated with those in this case, the conclusion of that earlier litigation extinguishes the privilege that can be asserted in those documents. [4] The second interlocutory application the plaintiff wishes to fil...