Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Decision date: 14 January 2014. The appeal concerns the Corporation’s decision dated 25 January 2013, in which it calculated Ms Hollis’ weekly compensation under the Accident Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 1992, so as not to include the holiday pay she received on termination of her employment in her earnings for the purposes of paying weekly compensation / The Authority does not have the jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal / The appeal is to be transferred to the District Court and there is no order as to costs.

Nee Nee and Nathan v C3 Ltd costs

Nuisance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / counter claim for costs under s 43 / Applicants claim Respondent is responsible for excess water flows on their property which have caused damage / Respondent counterclaimed for costs that he has unnecessarily incurred in defending claim / Held: Occupiers of land must accept water flowing naturally on to their land from higher ground / Respondent has not gone beyond what is deemed natural water run-off / Applicants’ claim is frivolous due to limitation period and is dismissed / Respondent’s counterclaim is granted / Applicants are to pay Respondent $793.50.

Decision Date: 09 December 2013. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Wallace & Cooper Ltd t/a Andar Holdings v Irvine [2013] NZEmpC 223 [Costs Judgment of Judge AA Couch, 2 December 2013] COSTS – Whether defendant’s hours and charge out rate reasonably incurred – Time spent on attendances and hourly rates inversely proportional when assessing reasonableness based on skill and experience of practitioner – Defendant advocate’s charge out rates reasonable for junior legal practitioner – Costs incurred by defendant reasonable – Whether there should be uplift in costs on basis of plaintiff’s unreasonable conduct – Defendant’s conduct also unreasonable – No adjustment on two-thirds starting point to be made on this basis – Whether plaintiff’s refusal of Calderbank offer to be taken into account – Incidence of taxation not be taken into account when assessing offer – Offer unreasonably refused – Plaintiff to pay 90 percent of defendants costs for those incurred after offer was made – Plaintiff ordered to pay defendant $52,765 in costs

Narayan v Telecom NZ Ltd [2013] NZEmpC 216 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge M E Perkins, 27 November 2013] APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED STATEMENT OF DEFENCE OUT OF TIME – Defendant one day late in filing amended statement of defence – Minor procedural defect – Leave granted – No order for costs made in light of plaintiff’s unreasonable and unfounded opposition.

Decision Date: 25 November 2013. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Contract / Applicant contracted with Respondent for 4 pages of advertising in their magazine, the following day Respondent called to rescind the contract / Applicant claimed $3,570.75 being the contract price plus interest against Respondent in her personal capacity / Held: more likely than not that Respondent was signing the contract as an agent for ABC Ltd and that Applicant had implied knowledge of this through the knowledge of their staff member / general rule about agency  is where agent does not disclose that it is signing for another party then an intention that they are the contracting party shall more readily be inferred / claim dismissed.

Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $4,400 in a private sale / transmission failed and quote for repairs was between $3,000 and $3,500 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Fair Trading Act 1976 do not apply to private sales, so Applicant required to establish a misrepresentation under the CRA / Held: a reasonable person reading the advertisement would have considered the car to be in excellent condition, so a misrepresentation existed / the Applicant relied on the statement and therefore the misrepresentation induced the purchase / the Applicant would be unable to receive a refund on the purchase price under the CRA and was limited to damages / if the full $3000--$3,500 was to be awarded there would be significant betterment to the Applicants, as they would receive a significantly more valuable car / found that the existing transmission was two thirds used, so the loss was about $1,000 / Respondent to pay Applicant total of $1,200.

Decision Date: 18 November 2013. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008

Decision date: 14 November 2013. Privacy Act 1993.

Contract / Applicant received telecommunication services from Respondent and signed new contract for a further 24 months / cancelled contract before 24 months had expired and Respondent applied cancellation charges / Applicant claimed service had been poor, they were not getting market leading rates and charges applied are excessive / Held: Applicant has invalidly cancelled contract / total lack of evidence pointing towards any attempt by Applicant to bring Respondent’s attention to any problems / cancellation rates were made available to Applicant as part of contract terms and conditions, rates applied not harsh, do not amount to penalties and are fair reflection of cost of cancelling a commercial contract / no basis to set cancellation costs aside / claim dismissed.

Decision Date: 04 November 2013. Charges laid under s 91 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008