Search Results

1. TO & TA v MB [2023] NZDT 232 (5 May 2023) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...to the failure to provide a hotel room. 10. For these reasons MB is to pay TO the sum of $2,779.54, and TA the sum of $640.00, by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 5 May 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

2. OH v LT [2024] NZDT 298 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...balance of probabilities that the respondent’s actions caused the collision and therefore the application must be dismissed. Referee: Hannan DTR Date: 24 April 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

3. D Ltd v JD & WD [2022] NZDT 174 (3 November 2022) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...That means the adjusted price payable is $3242.40. As Mr and Mrs D have already paid $1965.00, there is a balance of $1277.40 to be paid by the Ds to D Ltd. Referee Perfect Date: 3 November 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

4. Rapatini v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 97 [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...with the decision of the District Court as being wrong in law may, with the leave of the District Court, appeal to the High Court. [3] In her submissions filed in support of her application, Ms Rapatini refers to her GP lodging an ACC 45 injury claim form for work related gradual process injury. [4] She also refers to s 28 which deals with work related personal injury and to s 30 to personal injury caused by work related gradual process. [5] She says that Judge Henare and J...

5. ND Ltd v TS Ltd [2023] NZDT 101 (3 April 2023). [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...not filed any further documents since the last hearing and did not attend the hearing today. 20. I consider that it is most likely that TS Ltd have not paid an excess to their insurer in this case. This is because: a. BG Ltd has provided information which suggests that the repair of TS Ltd’s van was managed by BG Ltd’s insurer, and cost $2,381.00. This is not what TS Ltd said happened, and TS Ltd has not provided any evidence of what they said at the second hearing. b. I con...

6. PQ v ET [2024] NZDT 73 (12 February 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...half as agreed. f. Mr P’s claim incorrectly seeks $18,972.55. I cannot award Mr P more than he is claiming. 26. ET is to pay Mr P $18,972.55. Referee: Nicholas Blake Date: 12 February 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a r...

7. KH v EI [2024] NZDT 380 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...34. I am satisfied that the costs claimed are justified and reasonable. 35. For these reasons I find that EI is to pay J Ltd the sum of $12,198.48. Referee: K Johnson Date: 12 June 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a r...

8. [2011] NZEmpC 14 NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union v Steelfort Engineering Co Ltd [pdf, 80 KB]

   ...a staff of 98, five of whom were members of the plaintiff union employed under a collective agreement which was about to expire. The plaintiff initiated bargaining for the renewal of the collective agreement and at one point it made a written request of the defendant, pursuant to s 34 of the Act, for disclosure of its most recent accounts and other financial information. The request was rejected by the defendant principally upon the grounds that, in terms of s 32(1)(e) of the Act,...

9. KC v UD [2021] NZDT 1556 (8 September 2021) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...which he advised that the finance was conditional on a WOF, the communications thereafter were between KC, the broker and the finance company. UD say that his text reply to KC on or about 9 July 2021 was on the basis that KC had supplied all of the information required by [the broker] and [the financier]. 13. I find that it is more likely than not that finance was not approved for the following reasons: (a) UD says it was not approved. (b) There is an email from UD to KC dated 25 Ju...

10. BM & FM v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 735 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

    ...APPLICANTS BM and FM RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The respondent is changed from O Ltd to W Ltd. 2. W Ltd is to pay $2,506.46 to BM and FM by 31 January 2024. 3. The evidence provided by W Ltd in the document ‘Information and Submissions’ received by the [City 1] District Court on 1 December 2023 and provided to the Tribunal in the hearing of 19 December 2023 is suppressed pursuant to s20A of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 and may not be published.