Search Results

1. [2010] NZEMPC 137 NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union v Steelfort Engineering Co Ltd [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...dismissed the plaintiff’s application. [3] In this proceeding, the plaintiff challenges the Authority’s determination by way of a hearing de novo. It seeks relief in the form of a determination that, by failing to provide the information requested by the plaintiff, the defendant breached its good faith obligations under the relevant provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The facts [4] The defendant is a privately owned family company based in Palmerston...

2. HH v BJ Ltd [2024] NZDT 200 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 133 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 200 APPLICANT HH RESPONDENT BJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. HH filed an insurance claim for his damaged [car]. After an investigation, BJ Ltd declined the claim and cancelled HH’s insurance policy. 2. HH claims $15,000.00 toward the cost of repairing the car and a refund of $558.27 in to...

3. HRRT Guide to filing a reply [pdf, 462 KB]

   ...Chairperson and two members. Who can bring a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal? Each of the three Acts contains different rules which define who is entitled to bring a claim before the Tribunal. It is always important to check whether the Act is applicable in your case and allows the Tribunal to deal with the claim that you wish to defend. If in doubt, you should seek legal advice. Your local Citizens Advice Bureau or Community Law Centre may be able to provide some assistanc...

4. HRRT guide to filing a reply [pdf, 68 KB]

   ...Chairperson and two members. Who can bring a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal? Each of the three Acts contains different rules which define who is entitled to bring a claim before the Tribunal. It is always important to check whether the Act is applicable in your case and allows the Tribunal to deal with the claim that you wish to defend. If in doubt, you should seek legal advice. Your local Citizens Advice Bureau or Community Law Centre may be able to provide some assistanc...

5. NT v GD Ltd [2022] NZDT 177 (20 September 2022) [pdf, 111 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 177 APPLICANT NT RESPONDENT GD Ltd The Tribunal orders: NT’s claim against GD Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant booked return flights to Cairo for his family, travelling in July 2022. The flights were booked through the respondent. The first flight to Kuala Lumpur arrived late. The outbound flight wi...

6. Grants-Handbook-v4.80.pdf [pdf, 17 MB]

   ...criminal matters, the current rotational assignment process for PAL1 and PAL2 cases will be explained. The above process will be referred to where the caller is seeking a preferred lawyer for a case requiring a PAL3 or PAL4 provider. Where to send applications Grants staff process applications and are supported by a team of Technical Coaches and a Solicitor (an experienced senior lawyer). The table below sets out where to send applications. Refer to our website for the location and...

7. Te Manutukutuku Issue 26 [pdf, 3.1 MB]

   ...claims are duplicated. It has been considered that the historical claims could involve some 30 inquiries. ... With adequate resources it would be feasible to report on all historical claims before the year 2000. In addition the Tribunal has many requests for urgent inquiries. In these cases claimants and the Crown may be heard on whether urgency should be granted. The Tribunal endeavours to hear cases where the action complained of may have some irreversible consequence. Many urgent...

8. SC v OX [2023] NZDT 548 (21 September 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 548 APPLICANT SC RESPONDENT OX The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: OX is to pay $636.44 to SC on or before 19 October 2023. Reasons 1. SC moved into a flat in July 2020 for which OX was the head tenant. He signed a flat sharing agreement on 12 July 2020 and moved in about 22 July 2020. The rent was $250.00 per...

9. Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2018] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 944 KB]

   ...[110] THE QUESTION WHETHER THE REQUESTS WERE VEXATIOUS [112] Outline of the case for the Crown [128] Outline of the case for Mr Dotcom [131] The evidence of Mr Dotcom [132] Credibility assessment [140] SECTION 29(1)(j) – INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION [145] Meaning of “vexatious” [146] “Vexatious” and the broader context of the Privacy Act [147] Vexatiousness and the context of the Dotcom case – the importance of maintaining perspective [149] Claim: information soug...

10. NU v OA [2023] NZDT 748 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 224 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 748 APPLICANT NU RESPONDENT OA The Tribunal orders: The claim by NU against OA is partially proved. OA is to pay NU the sum of $590.58 on or by 5:00 pm on 20 January 2024. Reasons 1. On 13 February 2023 (after storm Gabrielle) at around 10:30 am, NU (the applicant) found that a large Jacaranda tree (the tree) had crashed over...