Search Results

1. U Ltd v M Ltd [2025] NZDT 63 (13 February 2025) [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...April 2024, the engagement became a general agency until cancelled by one calendar month’s written notice by either party. The listing agent was UH. On 17 November 2024, the Applicant put the listing for the Property up on various advertising platforms, as agreed between the parties. 2. On 31 January 2024, Mr M of the Respondent sent an email to UH asking for the listing to be withdrawn, and UH confirmed this on 2 February 2024. Mr M believed that the sole agency was then cancelled,...

2. OX v QT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1671 (16 August 2021) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...evidence presented OX’s vehicle was parked in the carpark for no more than 5-10 minutes. I find the $95.00 he has paid is more than sufficient compensation. Was OX a party to a contract in parking where he did? 8. A legally binding contract is formed where both parties intend to contract on agreed terms. For a contract to be enforceable the terms of the contract need to be certain and clear. 9. QT’s letter infers there was a contract between the parties. The letter states...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 77 Halse v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...resolves an application by the first plaintiff, Mr Halse, for judgment by default against the defendant, the Hamilton City Council. The application is made on the ground that the Hamilton City Council has failed to file a statement of claim. [2] For the reasons explained, Mr Halse’s application is dismissed. It could have been struck out. Mr Halse challenges a determination of the Authority [3] Mr Halse is dissatisfied with a determination of the Employment Relations...

4. FF Ltd v BX [2024] NZDT 205 (24 January 2024) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...to IL. Furthermore, if this was not the case, BX contends that IL was not introduced to the property by FF Ltd. Issues: Does clause 5.1.3 of the Sole Agency agreement between BX, TD and FF Ltd provide for the payment of a commission form the 27 January sale of the property by BX to IL, to FF Ltd? 6. Clause 1.0 of the Sole Agency agreement lists ‘TD + BX’s, as joint owners of the property as ‘the Client’ who appoints FF Ltd as the client’s real estate agent for...

5. EQ v G Insurance [2023] NZDT 428 (14 September 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...District Court [2023] NZDT 428 APPLICANT EQ RESPONDENT G Insurance The Tribunal orders: G Insurance Limited is to pay EQ the sum of $30,000.00 on or before 3 October 2023. Reasons: 1. In May 2022 the council performed a pool safety inspection on EQ’s swimming pool and failed it due to the fencing. EQ was required to empty the pool until the fencing was repaired. EQ emptied the pool on 28 May. On 11-13 June there was a heavy rain event, the pool li...

6. IX v HO [2024] NZDT 90 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...to see any such evidence, no amount is awarded in regard to this part of the claim. 14. HO is to pay IX $1,200.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: M Wilson Date: 28 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 rehe...

7. 2025] NZEmpC 183 Legal Hub Ltd v Singh [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...afterwards. Mr Cunningham withdrew the applications as they related to Ravinder Singh’s home, vehicle and KiwiBank account. [12] After the hearing Mr Cunningham filed a memorandum withdrawing the application relating to ASB Bank, because information about the accounts held with it was supplied to Legal Hub on Ravinder Singh’s behalf. Legal Hub continued the applications for discovery against Westpac and ANZ. [13] The grounds of the (revised) application remain: (a) I...

8. QQ v F Ltd [2025] NZDT 231 (27 May 2025) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...people. 3. [LC] of F Ltd says: a. There was a lot of hearsay in what QQ was saying. b. It was a moss treatment. He does not agree with what QQ says. F Ltd has been around since 1959 does a lot of these types of job. They didn’t change the formula they used for the wash. c. They bend over backwards to satisfy their customers. They tried to clean the windows in good faith as a customer service. d. All their workers are trained and audited before the start spraying. [Emp...

9. LG v HX [2024] NZT 681 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...that it cannot lawfully be driven on the road. LG claims a refund of the price he paid, and compensation for the parts and labour he expended on the vehicle. [2] LG said that he bought the vehicle after seeing it advertised on [an online selling platform]. The purchase price was $15,500.00. At the time of the sale, HX gave him a copy of a LVVTA Rectification form, which set out the work that was needed in order for the vehicle to be certified as roadworthy. A number of items were listed...

10. BS & WQ v K Ltd & ors [2023] NZDT 653 (2 November 2023) [pdf, 191 KB]

    ...suggestion made by K Ltd. I further take into account the [Lawn Services Company] pricing was for the complete grounds that K Ltd relied on were from 2021. I expect the cost for the area to be remedied would have increased from 2021 and without updated information am satisfied that the price for the complete lawn might be sufficient to cover the partial lawn that needs remedying. Therefore, I find that BS and WQ are entitled to claim $8,000.00 from K Ltd and T Ltd and the remainder of the...