Search Results

1. Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 29 (20 February 2025) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...[1] The appeal in the above matter was lodged by Mr Jones on 15 January 2025. The appeal is from the decision of a Reviewer dated 25 November 2024. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review of the Corporation’s decision of 12 October 2023 declining cover for Mr Jones’ osteoarthritis of the metacarpal joint of his left index finger as a work-related gradual process injury. 2 [2] On 15 January 2025, Judge Clark issued an Initial Minute which directed that Mr Jones, b...

2. Kaulima v Accident Compensation Corporation [2024] NZACC 22 [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...022 ACR 222/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN ANDREW KAULIMA Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 1 December 2023 (part-heard); 8 February 2024 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented (Mr S Davies in support) F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgm...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 289 Waikato Regional Council v Beaches Developments Limited [pdf, 4.4 MB]

   ...the District Court1 with two charges against the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) in relation to property at 151 Matarangi Drive, Matarangi (the property).2 The property is owned by the First Respondent. [2] The charges were filed on 18 May 2023 and relate to alleged breaches of restrictions on the use of land pursuant to the RMA, being the undertaking of earthworks and the clearance of vegetation within a natural wetland. [3] The Respondents acknowledge that between 1 August 2...

4. [2025] NZEmpC 24 Cunningham v healthAlliance NZ [pdf, 157 KB]

   GARTH MURRAY CUNNINGHAM v HEALTHALLIANCE NZ LIMITED [2025] NZEmpC 24 [20 February 2025] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2025] NZEmpC 24 EMPC 221/2023 EMPC 2/2024 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for a verification order BETWEEN GARTH MURRAY CUNNINGHAM Plaintiff AND...

5. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 662 APPLICANT EM RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In November 2023 EM’s secondary-school-age son BM responded to a [online selling website] advertisement and purchased a [Car] from KU for $10,300.00. EM says while BM worked hard after school to save and pay for this vehicle, EM himself has suffered a loss becau...

6. [2025] NZLCDT 14 Wellington Standards Committee 1 v McCardle (17 March 2025) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...unsatisfactory conduct. The fact that Mr McCardle had earlier admitted a discrete particular as negligent conduct cannot be dragged forward as a penalising factor because we chose not to find in accordance 2 Wellington Standards Committee 2 v Collins [2023] NZLCDT 3. 4 with that narrow admission. It was an admission framed within the range of charges as then pleaded. All that can be let go of once our decision was made. [10] Pitching the finding as unsatisfactory cond...

7. T Ltd v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 735 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...employee Mr U had apparently altered invoicing arrangements directly with H Ltd, directing H Ltd to pay another company and a different bank account. H Ltd says it complied with the request made by Mr U and paid Mr U’s business for the work in January 2023, and should not be liable to pay again. 3. The Issues to be resolved are: a. What terms and conditions were agreed about payment? b. Has H Ltd fulfilled its obligation to pay for work done by T Ltd? c. Is T Ltd entitled to $19...

8. LN v SU & Ors [2024] NZDT 376 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT SU SECOND RESPONDENT LL THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd and SU, jointly and severally, are to pay the sum of $2,474.93 on or before 26 March 2024. Reasons: 1. In May 2023 LN discovered that the shower in her bathroom was leaking. She contacted SU after seeing an advertisement on his wife’s [social media] and engaged him to carry out repairs. SU assessed the shower and replaced some of the tiles. A...

9. OT v KI [2024] NZDT 385 (3 May 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...would replace any windows with scratches, but subsequently he questioned whether the scratches might have been pre-existing. The parties agreed on an inspection by SF, a representative from [industry body]. The inspection took place on 18 August 2023. After receiving the [industry body] report, the consumer arranged for stripping of the film by another contractor. The supplier covered the cost of the stripping, and refunded the consumer’s deposit, but has refused to pay the quoted cost...

10. CU v MQ [2024] NZDT 299 (30 April 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

    ...a reversal fee paid by one of the buyers. MQ counterclaims $1,300.00 for stress and time off work to attend the hearing, for both herself and her wife. [2] CU said that the errors came about because she had purchased an item from MQ in October 2023 and MQ had provided her bank account to her. CU kept the number on her Clipboard notes and mistakenly provided it to seven buyers in late December. She said that she had given only the bank account number but not MQ’s name, as she had be...