Search Results

1. FC Ltd v TN & JM [2021] NZDT 1626 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...with FC LTD to pay JD’s fee. I consider it reasonable in the circumstances that they share that cost equally. FC LTD’s share of responsibility rests on its unauthorised engagement of JD; and TN & JM’s responsibility is the result of their permitting the work to be done in circumstances that should have put them on enquiry about the contract that had been made. TN & JM should therefore pay to FC LTD half of the cost of JD’s fee, which is $2,167.75. Referee: C...

2. DD v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 536 (17 October 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...reasons. First, the loss is of a subjective nature and the extent of intangible harm is difficult to prove and to price. If measured, any award is open to criticism on the basis that the outcome is unpredictable, or contains a punitive element not permitted in calculating loss. Leaving aside these practical issues, there is a more fundamental policy concern against such awards. Contracts often give rise to stress, particularly where personal, social or family interests are affected. T...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 175 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno [pdf, 235 KB]

   ...the following helpful observations:12 [22] In applying an appropriate balance to the matter, the Court has, on occasion, restricted both the nature of the challenge from a de novo to a non- de novo basis and the scope and extent of the evidence permitted.13 One or both methods have been adopted as a means of providing a result in response to obstructive behaviour in the Authority's proceedings. An alternative response has been to give an indication that the behaviour will be a...

4. [2016] NZSSAA 109 (22 December 2016) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...her position in the belief that he or she was entitled to that sum and would not have to pay or repay that sum to the chief executive; and (b) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [7] The word “error” in 9A is the subject of a special definition in (9B) which reads: (9B) In subsection (9A), error— (a) means— (i) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the department: (ii) an...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 116 Pollett v Browns Real Estate Ltd [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...September 2011 (by telephone conference call) Appearances: Plaintiff in person Jessie Parker, counsel for defendant Judgment: 23 September 2011 JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] This judgment decides whether Neil Pollett should be permitted to challenge the determination 1 of the Employment Relations Authority that he was not an employee. It is necessary for Mr Pollett to have leave because he failed to file his challenge to the Authority’s determination with...

6. [2020] NZEmpC 20 Kohli v Brahmbhatt [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...ordered by the Authority at this time. They express concern about recovery of any amounts paid, at least in respect of Ms Brahmbhatt, as she is said to no longer reside in New Zealand. [13] The plaintiffs submit that a stay should be granted to permit a full and proper hearing of the matter and the defendants will not be in any worse position, as they will not be able to spend any of the award from the Authority until the Court has determined if it is properly owing. [14] In...

7. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Taffs Liability [2015] NZLCDT 41 [pdf, 34 KB]

   ...expressed contrition in a plain and straightforward manner. [38] We are also aware that he is one of a few counsel on the West Coast with significant trial experience, to represent people in trouble. Thus there is a public interest in Mr Taffs being permitted to continue to practice. At the Tribunal’s request, counsel negotiated a supervision arrangement whereby Mr Taffs would meet regularly with Mr Gomas on the following basis: 1. Mr Taffs is to be subject to the supervision of...

8. LV v VJ LCRO 81 / 2011 (6 September 2011) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...confusion about the definition of “household chattels”, and had no recollection of a warning from the Applicant that the transfer of chattels would not occur without incident. He elaborated on the circumstances under which the niece had been permitted access to the deceased’s property in June 2010, including the Applicant’s giving permission for the Practitioner’s office to release the house key to her. [11] The Practitioner referred to his file note of 24 May recording...

9. IT & NH v UN Ltd [2022] NZDT 163 (25 October 2022) [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...hearing from Mr O, I accept that is the state of the art currently. There is nothing in the agreement between the parties that gives them a right to reject the goods if they simply did not like it, and I find that the Consumer Guarantees Act does not permit this either. If the goods were not acceptable in quality in terms of what was requested and agreed to be provided, then it would fail the guarantee. However, after holding and examining the model, and seeing photos of the child at...

10. 2021-02-25 List of Parties [pdf, 156 KB]

    Page 1 of 6 LIST OF PARTIES TOPIC: Decision on the provisions and matters raised in submissions on Otago Regional Council Plan Change 7 (Water Permits) Role Name Address for service Applicant Otago Regional Council Service via the website Section 274 Party Aepurist International pete@leaningrockcherreis.co.nz Section 274 Party Airdrie Service via the website Section 274 Party Akarua Ltd Service via the website Section 274 Party Aotearoa New Zealand Fine Wine Estate...