Search Results

1. D Ltd v IB [2024] NZDT 560 (26 July 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...a. Is IB entitled to cancel the contract and not pay for services? b. If not, is the amount claimed reasonable? Is IB entitled to cancel the contract and not pay for services? 3. When two parties exchange something of value a contract is formed. In order to be bound by a contract, both parties must be certain about the essential terms of the contract. In this case the terms of the contract are in a written document titled “Valuation Agreement” dated 31 May 2022 and signed by...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. IQ & WK v HK [2024] NZDT 134 (10 April 2024) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...exclusive possession of any parts of the property. There is no question that this was the basis on which the house was owned. The evidence of this is the lawyer’s file notes and a written statement in which HK gifted $100,000 to IQ. This also informs a presumption that costs will be shared. 16. I find that there was an agreed position that the parties would pay even shares for the mortgage payments, rates and outgoings (the Contributions). This is because: a. cl C. of the Deed 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.