Search Results

1. Hawkins Family Trust v Heuthorst withdrawn [pdf, 71 KB]

   ...that Mr and Mrs Hawkins did not file their claim with the Tribunal as soon as practicable after it was withdrawn as required by s 148. The claim filed with the Tribunal in 2008 was only an interim and non-quantified claim which the claimants requested be put on hold so that they could carry out the remedial work. They did not file a quantified claim until May 2012 and that claim is still based on estimates. [22] Secondly the respondents may be able to argue they have been...

2. Introduction to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal [pdf, 549 KB]

   ...party. Expert witnesses Any party has the right to appoint an expert at their own expense. All expert witnesses must be independent and comply with the Tribunal’s Expert witness code of conduct (available online at justice.govt.nz/Tribunals/wht/forms-and-guides). http://justice.govt.nz/tribunals/wht/forms-and-guides Inspections and site visits Respondents and their expert advisors are entitled to inspect the claimant’s property. The timing and length of the inspection must b...

3. Rabson v Solicitor-General (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...Privacy Commissioner. The complaint to the Privacy Commissioner [7] By email dated 8 June 2016 Mr Rabson made an information privacy request to Crown Law for the identity of the person who sent the email and "the reason behind it". He also requested information in relation to himself, the Malcolm Rabson Family Trust, The Gallagher Rabson Family Trust and Casino Properties Limited. [8] On completion of his investigation the Privacy Commissioner by letter dated 19 May 2017 gav...

4. Re Stryder (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2019] NZHRRT 34 [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...Mr RPG Haines ONZM QC, Chairperson REPRESENTATION: Mr I Stryder in person The intended first, second, third, fourth and fifth defendants were not heard DATE OF DECISION: 10 July 2019 DECISION THAT INTENDED STATEMENT OF CLAIM NOT BE ACCEPTED FOR FILING1 Introduction [1] By email dated 7 March 2019 Mr Stryder presented for filing in the office of the Tribunal a statement of claim dated 7 March 2019. The claim was made under the Privacy Act 1993 but mis...

5. B Ltd v H Ltd [2025] NZDT 178 (12 May 2025) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...whether a further breakdown of the price was required. 4. B Ltd said it was never informed that this further breakdown was required. Instead, it was informed that the contract had been cancelled and the work awarded to a different electrician. It claims $11,477.12 from H Ltd on the basis of lost profit; time spent pricing the variation; the Disputes Tribunal filing fee and labour for preparing the claim and to appear at the Tribunal. 5. H Ltd said it made it very clear it required...

6. DF v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 235 (19 May 2023) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...policy? If so, has U Ltd proved that it is entitled to decline DF’s insurance claim? (b) Is DF entitled to a remedy and, if so, is the amount claimed proved and reasonable? Page 2 of 6 8. The parties presented a large amount of information and evidence to the Tribunal regarding the claim and the counterclaim. I would like to reassure the parties that all information and evidence presented has been considered, but this order refers only to essential material and is not...

7. Jang v Tse [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...there would need to be evidence of increase. At the resumed hearing Mr Kwon advised me that there was no evidence to be given. Although I indicated that I might consider an increase in the claim consistent with the cost of living increase, I have formed the view that, in fairness to the respondents, I cannot embark on that exercise in the absence of any information from the parties. A relevant factor may well be that the estimate of repair costs includes replacement "to a ve...

8. LE v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 456 (27 June 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...Family Court ahead of her, and she says that this has disadvantaged her. LE brings a claim against T Ltd in the Tribunal seeking damages of $630.00, being the legal costs she has incurred. 5. TB of T Ltd says that LE did not complete and send an F40 form about her financial position to the Centre, so the mediation application could not proceed and it was recorded by the Centre as an ‘administrative withdrawal’. LE says that she did not receive an F40 form from the Centre to complet...

9. KN v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 106 (28 February 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...intended to cause inconvenience and annoyance. Is T Ltd entitled to the costs claimed under its Terms and Conditions? 11. Parties to a contract are bound by express and implied terms. Express terms are those that have been made known prior to formation of the contract. 12. All of the work carried out by T Ltd was on the basis of a quote. On the bottom of the quote there is a statement “Our terms of trade can be found here: [redacted]”. 13. T Ltd’s claim for costs associa...

10. ES v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 547 (2 August 2024) [pdf, 122 KB]

    ...or repair of the silo. 3. No further contact was made by ES to either T Ltd, NC or W Ltd regarding the matter and, on 30 March 2021, NC wrote to ES advising him that if he wished to have the matter settled he would need to sign the discharge form sent to him in February 2019 with the offer of settlement. ES responded on 28 April 2021 stating again that the offer is unacceptable, and he will be filing a claim in the Tribunal. 4. ES filed his claim on 19 February 2024. He claims th...