Search Results

1. IP v AR LCRO 161 / 2011 (15 June 2012) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...from his wife. The Applicant had originally acted for himself, and had then approached the Practitioner for assistance. The Applicant was charged $3,400 plus GST and disbursements. The Applicant’s refusal to pay led the Practitioner to file a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. [3] The Applicant’s complaint to the New Zealand Law Society stated that the reason for his not paying was that he felt the Practitioner was working for the industry, and working for the opposition lawyer...

2. Singh v Kumar [2015] NZIACDT 72 (04 June 2015) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Work Experience Visa. However, his client could not get an Employer Supplementary Form, which is an essential prerequisite to apply for that class of visa. [1.2] Mr Kumar advised his client he could none-the-less apply, and proceeded to make the application. Immigration New Zealand responded explaining the application could not succeed. [1.3] Mr Kumar then advised his client to respond to Immigration New Zealand, essentially relying on the same information that Immigration New Zealand...

3. LM v JD & TD [2022] NZDT 6 (8 March 2022) [pdf, 224 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 6 APPLICANT LM RESPONDENT JD SECOND RESPONDENT TD The Tribunal orders: The claim and the counterclaim are dismissed. Reasons 1. LM owns [address 1] (property one). JD and TD (the respondents) own the adjoining property at [address 2] (property two). 2. On or about 21 March 2021 LM served a fencing n...

4. IG Ltd v IX Ltd [2023] NZDT 390 (29 August 2023) [pdf, 94 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 390 APPLICANT IG Ltd RESPONDENT IX Ltd The Tribunal orders: It is declared that IG Ltd is not liable for the invoices issued by IX Ltd dated 30 November 2022 for $4,471.20 and 16 December 2022 for $2,300.43. The counterclaim by IX Ltd with respect to these invoices is dismissed. Reasons: 1) In April 2019 the applicant op...

5. C Ltd & HN v G Ltd & GX [2024] NZDT 1 (3 January 2024) [pdf, 251 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 1 APPLICANTS C Ltd HN RESPONDENT G Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT GX The Tribunal orders: 1. G Ltd is to pay C Ltd $2387.50 on or before 20 January 2024. 2. Payment is to be made by way of direct credit to account number [redacted]. Reasons: 1. HN, the sole director of C Ltd, provides workshops and coaching for self-devel

6. [2012] NZEmpC 177 Rimene v P J Doherty & Natusch Group Ltd [pdf, 61 KB]

   ...any party to a matter before the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) who is dissatisfied with the determination of the Authority or any part of such determination may elect to have the matter heard by the Court by filing a statement of claim in the prescribed manner within 28 days after the date of the determination in question. [2] In a minute dated 24 May 2012, Chief Judge Colgan confirmed that Mr Rimene had filed an application seeking an extension of time in which to...

7. MT v EB [2023] NZDT 508 (1 November 2023) [pdf, 239 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 508 APPLICANT MT RESPONDENT EB The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. MT purchased a saddle after seeing it advertised on EB’s [online] account. After her successful bid, she contacted EB on 6 February and asked her to “look at postage to [City] plea...

8. EX v TY [2022] NZDT 273 (16 December 2022) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...of probabilities that TY has not breached the guarantees under the CGA, and EX is not entitled to claim a refund of $3,925.10. Accordingly, the claim is dismissed. Referee: L Fuli Date: 16 December 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...

9. Redruth v Dereham LCRO 154 / 2010 (10 November 2010) [pdf, 132 KB]

   LCRO 154/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 3 BETWEEN MR REDRUTH on behalf of ETL Applicant AND MR DEREHAM Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] The New Zealand Law Society received a complaint from Mr Redruth (the Applicant)...

10. Coleman v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 41 [pdf, 113 KB]

    ...Trading Act 1986. DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENCE TO THE CLAIM FOR UNIT 112B? [4] On 25 August 2008, Benjamin Coleman, the representative of Unit 112D, applied for an assessor’s report. Unit 112B was not included in this application however Ms Bamford subsequently authorised Mr Coleman to bring the claim for her unit. The relevant chronology is set out below: Date Action 10 December 1998 Final inspection of 112B by the Council. 22 December...