Search Results

1. Beattie v Official Assignee (Costs) [2021] NZHRRT 40 [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...to be the unreasonable decline by Mr Beattie of the Assignee’s Calderbank offer. Other conduct of Mr Beattie is said to have been unreasonable. The Assignee says he has incurred costs well in excess of $100,000 in responding to Mr Beattie’s claim. [2] It is to be noted that while Mr Beattie filed an appeal in the High Court, that appeal was struck out by Brewer J in Beattie v The Official Assignee [2021] NZHC 1607 (1 July 2021) as a consequence of Mr Beattie’s failure to serve hi...

2. Rafiq v Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHRRT 9 [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...defendant is an interference with the privacy of the plaintiff. Without these pre-requisites the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under s 85 of the Act to grant a remedy. [8] The statement of claim in HRRT037/2011 alleges multiple breaches of information privacy Principles 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 11. The statement of claim in HRRT038/2011 alleges multiple breaches of information privacy Principles 1 to 11 while the statement of 3 claim in HRRT039/2011 alleges multiple breaches o...

3. KL v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 92 (1 February 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 92 APPLICANT KL RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In about November 2021, KL bought a mattress from D Ltd. The mattress was described as “medium”, as opposed to the other descriptions for that type of mattress, “soft” and “firm”. KL developed a pain in his shoulder in about May 2022, an...

4. DA v YB [2023] NZDT 685 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 685 APPLICANT DA RESPONDENT YB The Tribunal orders: YB is to pay $705.00 to DA on or before 31 January 2024; and Once the payment is made, DA is to make the scooter available for collection by YB within four weeks of payment. Reasons 1. The applicant purchased a new scooter from the respondent via [online platform] at a cost...

5. LT v OT Ltd [2023] NZDT 356 (23 May 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 356 APPLICANT LT RESPONDENT OT Ltd The Tribunal orders: OT Ltd must pay LT $2,114.10 by 4pm on 13 June 2023. Reasons: 1. The applicant purchased a sofa from the respondent and arranged for it to be delivered by the respondent. When the sofa came to be delivered, the people delivering it were unable to deliver...

6. Apostolakis v Gilbert (Decision) [2018] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...Apostolakis and Mr Gilbert were given notice these proceedings would be heard at the Tribunals Unit, Ministry of Justice, Level 1, 86 Customhouse Quay, Wellington on 9 and 10 March 2017. [8.2] On 13 February 2017 Mrs Apostolakis filed an adjournment application based on a number of grounds. No mention was made of ill-health. That application was dismissed by the Chairperson by Minute dated 15 February 2017. 3 [8.3] At 1:20pm on 8 March 2017 ie the afternoon before the hearing,...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 146 Strawberry Tree Ltd v Tuckett & Parr [pdf, 65 KB]

   ...statement of claim but, as soon as registry staff became aware of it, they advised Mr Kavanagh that service could not properly be effected on overseas parties without leave of the Court. 2 On 20 December 2012, Mr Kavanagh was told that such an application was required and sent copies of the relevant regulations and forms. [7] In the meantime, Mr Kavanagh had apparently posted a copy of the amended statement of claim to the defendants. They responded to this by sending a statement...

8. DQ & FD v BS [2021] NZDT 1655 (2 November 2021) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...DQ’s by the other tenants. DQ and FD filed a claim for the amount of bond not refunded. 2. This is a claim for a breach of the agreement between the tenants which is alleged to have resulted in a loss of two weeks rent, that is $430.00, to the Applicants. The Respondents counterclaimed, in effect, for a declaration that they were not liable to the Applicants pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Both parties claim a refund of their costs, namely the f...

9. C Ltd v E Ltd [2022] NZDT 259 (20 December 2022) [pdf, 96 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 259 APPLICANT C Ltd RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Notes Mr E of E Ltd was driving past an X service station in August 2022 when he noticed a man water-blasting close to the edge of the canopy roof of the service station. He made a phone call to advise the appr...

10. Kropelnicki v Wellington City Council (Strike-Out) [2021] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 110 KB]

    ...filing of the amended statement of claim was sought. Mr Fraser also sought leave to withdraw on the basis that legal aid had been declined and that Mr Kropelnicki, who was by that time in Costa Rica, refused to provide the information Mr Fraser had requested from him. [13] By Minute dated 13 September 2019 the Tribunal granted Mr Fraser leave to withdraw as counsel. New timetabling directions were made with Mr Kropelnicki now to 3 file his amended statement of claim by 13 Dec...