Search Results

1. EC v ST [2024] NZDT 37 (23 February 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...Did ST exercise reasonable care when proceeding through the intersection? (ii) Have the costs claimed been established? Did ST exercise reasonable care when proceeding through the intersection? 4. All drivers owe a duty arising under the law of tort to take reasonable care to drive in a manner that does not cause harm to other drivers. This duty is reinforced by Rule 4.2(2) and (4) of the Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2004. Rule 4.2(2) provides that a driver turning or about to...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 110 Matsuoka v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd [pdf, 88 KB]

   ...non-party disclosure is granted. The Court has clear jurisdiction to make such an order. 2 It is appropriate in all of the circumstances of this case. In the absence of documents which PRI as Mr Matsuoka’s former employer was required by law to retain, it is entirely appropriate that steps should be taken to recover information relating to Mr 2 Employment Relations Act 2000, sch 3, cl 13, incorporating s 56B of the District Cou...

3. MT v UI [2022] NZDT 54 (9 May 2022) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...turf when trimming the hedge on MT’s property? b. If not, are the costs claimed reasonably foreseeable and reasonable? Did UI take reasonable care not to cause damage to the artificial turf when trimming the hedge on MT’s property? 5. The law of negligence states that where parties owe a duty of care to others they must take reasonable care not to cause damage to them. Given UI was working on MT’s property, he owed her a duty of care. The question is whether he took reasona...

4. ED Ltd v TQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 312 (27 July 2023) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...that website provided and the article provided do not match) which refers to a Queensland District Court case which found that a builder’s decision to terminate a building contract because it was unable to meet escalating industry costs was not a lawful basis for termination. On those minimal facts, that appears to be a perfectly reasonable decision. Contracts cannot be cancelled without good reason. However that is a different position than exists in this case. The existence of clause 4...

5. E v Hakaoro [2015] NZIACDT 54 (14 May 2015) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms K England, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, Auckland. Complainant: Mr N T Tupou, barrister, instructed by Sinisa Law Ltd, solicitors, Auckland. Adviser: In person Date Issued: 14 May 2015 2 DECISION This Complaint [1] This decision imposes sanctions, following a decision upholding a complaint against Mr Hakaoro (E v Hakaor...

6. AQ v UD LCRO 188/2013 (10 August 2013) [pdf, 206 KB]

   LCRO 188/2013 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN AQ Applicant AND UD Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed DECISION Introduction [1] Mrs AQ seeks to review the Standards Committee decision to take no further action in relation to her complain

7. [2019] NZEnvC 202 JWA Smith & DV Smith Trust v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 6.4 MB]

   ...other party the costs and expenses (including witness expenses) incurred by the other party that the court considers reasonable. [13) That discretion is broadly expressed. The court is guided by a body of general principles developed through case law and summarised in the court's Practice Note.9 In particular, the Practice Note says: 6.6 Costs The following issues are relevant to the practice of the Court in considering costs issues: (b) Where an appeal against a proposed p...

8. DF v QT [2024] NZDT 474 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...were on site at the time. When QT saw that the palings were being put on DF’s side, he confronted the builders. He told DF that he and EJ would not contribute the insurance payment if the fence was built that way. 12. After talking with her lawyer, DF instructed the builders to proceed. 13. DF’s claim seeks payment of the $3,785.00. 14. The hearing took place by phone on 28 May 2024. Both parties participated in the hearing. Findings 15. The Disputes Tribunal is r...

9. TU v TG Ltd & SC [2024] NZDT 481 (19 June 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...the criteria set out in CCCFA s 16(1). 8. TG Ltd claimed that TU was leasing the car for work purposes. However, TU said that he was an employee and needed the vehicle for commuting and family purposes. Commuting to work is generally treated in law as a private expense for an employee, so I consider that TU intended to use the car wholly or predominantly for personal, domestic, or household purposes. 9. The remaining criteria in s 16(1) are clearly satisfied, noting that the residual...

10. Chalecki v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late Filing of an Appeal to the District Court) [2024] NZACC 154 (30 September 2024) [pdf, 149 KB]

    ...application for leave to appeal out of time. However, the Corporation puts Mr Chalecki on notice with respect to costs and intends, if successful in challenging the substantive appeal, to pursue an application for costs against Mr Chalecki. Relevant law [5] Section 151 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) provides: (1) An appellant brings an appeal by sending a notice of appeal to, or filing a notice of appeal in, a specified registry. ... (3) The notice must be re...