Search Results

1. AGQ v ZTY [2013] NZDT 355 (6 January 2014) [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...whether it would be unconscionable for the other party to take the benefit of the bargain.2 [8] AGQ produced evidence at the hearing to show that she had purchased her 1996 Mitsubishi RVR in January 2013 for $2,600.00. Given the age of the vehicle at the time of purchase it would seem likely that its value would not have materially changed in the few months between its purchase and the accident. The car’s purchase price appears reasonable on the balance of probabilities in...

2. NL v KS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1477 (21 August 2020) [pdf, 204 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1477 APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT KS Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT Council APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) B Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: KS Ltd is to pay B Ltd $3,311.40 by Wednesday 16 September 2020. Reasons 1. A truck owned KS Ltd was being driven down [Road 1] in [Suburb] when it s

3. Chee v Stareast Investment Ltd [pdf, 23 KB]

   ...and trading as a building company and known in the building industry as such • TQ was not a single project company • TQ was deliberately incorporated to create a separate legal entity that made it plain to all the world that this was the vehicle of all relevant business transactions Spouting and Steel Roofing World Ltd: fascia and spouting supplier and installer Spouting Steel did not participate at the hearing. The Tribunal found that there was sufficient evidence indicat...

4. [2022] NZREADT 23 - CAC 1904 v Bright (8 November 2022) [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...Bright has been charged by Complaints Assessment Committee 1904 (the Committee) with misconduct. The particulars of the charge are:1 1. On 3 July 2019, the complainant viewed the property (and one other property) with Mr Bright, travelling in his vehicle. 2. The complainant and Mr Bright were not acquainted prior to the viewing. 3. The complainant and Mr Bright were the only people present at the viewing. 4. During the viewing of the property, in the master bedroom, Mr Bright:...

5. EQ & MC v IJ Ltd & SD [2022] NZDT 146 (31 August 2022) [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...Gary Spence [2017] NZHC 398. Negligent misstatement 3. In relation to EQ and MC’s alternative cause of action, negligent misstatement, the Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction for claims relating to negligent misstatement. 4. Negligence (which includes negligent misstatement) is a tort. Under s10(1)(c) the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 the Disputes Tribunal’s tort jurisdiction is limited to a claim in respect of: a. the destruction or loss of any property; b. an...

6. Johnson v Canterbury/Westland Standards Committee 3 - Outcome of appeal of decisions [2018] NZLCDT 5 and [2018] NZLCDT 21 [pdf, 439 KB]

   ...Charge 1 43 No duty to give advice as to trustees’ duties 46 Preferring expert evidence of Mr Eades to that of Mr Haynes 50 Failure to follow Bartle 51 Rule 3 of the Conduct and Client Care Rules 60 Finding that Mr Johnson was guilty of high end negligence 63 Appeal on Charges 2 and 3 72 Scope of appeal on Charges 2 and 3 78 What constitutes misconduct? 79 Appeal against penalty 88 Result 101 Introduction [1] Ronald Bruce Johnson has appealed two deci...

7. MOJ0058 Disputes Tribunal booklet JAN23 [pdf, 428 KB]

   ...tenancies (disputes between landlords and tenants) • body corporate issues in an apartment block (unit title development) • employment contracts • family law issues, such as relationship property and care of children • tort claims (e.g., negligence, nuisance, trespass, conversion) where there is no damage to property, but just an economic loss • entitlements under a will • rates, taxes, social welfare benefits or ACC payments • trade secrets or intellectual proper...

8. MOJ0058_Disputes-Tribunal-booklet_JUN24_WEB.pdf [pdf, 438 KB]

   ...tenancies (disputes between landlords and tenants) • body corporate issues in an apartment block (unit title development) • employment contracts • family law issues, such as relationship property and care of children • tort claims (e.g., negligence, nuisance, trespass, conversion) where there is no damage to property, but just an economic loss • entitlements under a will • rates, taxes, social welfare benefits or ACC payments • trade secrets or intellectual proper...

9. LCRO 21-2017 AJ v AK [pdf, 298 KB]

   ...A fixed-fee of $15,000 plus GST and disbursements was agreed between Mr AJ and Mr AK. 2 [5] A partial settlement was achieved at a Judicial Settlement Conference in June 2011. In particular, it was agreed that Mr AK would retain a motor vehicle valued at $3,000 and his former partner would retain one valued at $53,000 (the vehicles agreement). [6] Other issues required a defended hearing before a judge. [7] That hearing took place in mid-May 2012. On [date], the Court del...

10. AEJ Ltd v ZVM [2013] NZDT 304 (23 September 2013) [pdf, 56 KB]

    IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 304 BETWEEN AEJ Ltd APPLICANT AND AEK LTD APPLICANT’S INSURER AND ZVM RESPONDENT Date of Order: 23 September 2013 Referee: Referee Macpherson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZVM is to pay to HY Insurance Ltd the sum of $7,523.01 by 5 pm on Friday, 4 October 2013. Facts [1] At 3 am on 1 September 2012, BQ was driving