Search Results

1. BB v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 183 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...contribute to the costs. I therefore find U Ltd not liable to contribute towards the cost of the fence. 9. In view of the above, the claim must be dismissed. Referee: DTR Edwards Date: 27 March 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...

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. B Ltd v DT [2023] NZDT 741 (22 December 2023) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...or an inherent defect of the vehicle? (iii) If there is a breach of contract then what loss has B Ltd suffered? Was there a contract between DT and B Ltd Ltd? 5. The relevant law is the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. A contract is formed when parties agree on the terms and conditions under which goods or services will be provided. 6. DT claims that the contract for the courtesy car was between her ex-husband TI and B Ltd as it was him and not her who ‘picked up’ th...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...