Edison Tam Lawyers are based in Manukau, South Auckland. We’re specialists in dispute resolution. We act for individuals and businesses. For assistance with visa applications, immigration issues, civil litigation, ACC appeals or employment disputes, you can talk to us.
Tui UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48
Mr Griffiths went on a package holiday to Turkey with his family. This included flights and accommodation. During their stay at the hotel, Mr Griffiths suffered serious gastroenteritis and was in hospital for 3 days. He sued the travel company under the package holiday contract. What was the outcome?
Soft Technology v Jones Lang Lasalle [2022] NZCA 353
The Court of Appeal recently considered section 126 of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 (entitlement to commission) in a case where the real estate agent claimed commission from its client for introducing a tenant to a commercial lease.
The invasion of Ukraine precipitated a crisis at FIDE. The “family” is in conflict. Its president, Arkady Dvorkovich, is a former Russian deputy prime minister. Much of FIDE’s funding has historically come from Russian companies, some now facing international sanctions.
Mr Karjakin has expressed support for the Russian invasion of Ukraine. In its decision dated 21 March 2022, the FIDE ethics and disciplinary commission (EDC) said Mr Karjakin had published a letter of support for President Putin.
Our blog discusses the decision of the EDC and highlights the difficult legal issues surrounding it.
When the Prime Minister and Commissioner of Police addressed the nation on 3 September 2021, about the terror attack at LynnMall which critically injured 3 people, they said they were unable to name the alleged perpetrator for legal reasons.
At a time when the experience in some courts is of delays and a lack of resources, the judgment of His Honour Justice Cooke shows the High Court acting with remarkable urgency during alert level-4 Covid restrictions.
Section 32 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 provides cover for “treatment injury”. One aspect of this provision has been problematic for some time. In ACC v Ng and L [2020] NZCA 274, the Court of Appeal had to consider the meaning of “ordinary consequence” of treatment in section 32(1)(c) of the Act.
