Search Results

1. D Ltd v KL [2023] NZDT 684 (21 December 2023) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...$1500.00 on or before Tuesday 30 January 2024. Reasons: 1. KL’s car had been vandalised and in lieu of write off he had settled with his insurer and was restoring it. In April 2022 he engaged D Ltd (the company) to spray paint the car and to perform some repairs, and paid $8212.15. KL provided the second hand parts, being two front fenders and four doors. 2. The company claims $1962.50 for legal costs. 3. KL claims $17,212.16, increased at the hearing from $8211.15. This...

2. DD v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 318 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...company’s evidence that it had a no refund policy because: it provided evidence of how it notified and published its policy including: i. A4 signage in a stand on the counter where payments are made; and ii. I also accept that DD was given an A4 form to fill in, which had the title XX’s Membership and VIP Terms and Conditions, and that at number 5 of 13 brief terms, it made clear that: “The money deposited in [XX] is not refundable and can only be redeemed with XX’s products”....

3. McAneney v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 63 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...$289,659.55. In addition the Council has successfully established the claim for contribution of $153,000 against Mr Kells. [49] There is no need for the Tribunal to consider the contribution to settlement made by the second respondents as no request was made by that party to this proceeding. Conclusion and Orders [50] The claimants’ claim is appropriate to the extent of $289,659.55. For the reasons set out in this determination I make the following orders: i. M...

4. MacGregor v Craig (Rescission of Confidentiality Orders) [2016] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...that publication of some parts, but not all, of the decision would provide an opportunity for her to be publicly vindicated. [11] She also submitted non-publication orders should be made to uphold and protect the confidentiality undertakings that formed the core of the claim before the Tribunal. The broad terms of the redactions sought were listed in a memorandum of 16 March 2016. It is not necessary to review the proposals here but it should be observed the redactions were so extens...

5. The Estate of UB v KM [2020] NZDT 1322 (3 December 2020) [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...(being $7,449.11 to remedy the painting work; $524.64 being the GST that should not have been paid; and $935.00 for the stairwell carpet). Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 3 December 2020 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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...

6. TD v SN [2022] NZDT 99 (19 September 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...scan, Austen would have to be put down. TD paid $5,000 to the vet. 5. The MRI scan revealed no sign of a dog bite, and that the partial paralysis Austen was suffering from was caused by a congenital condition, Syringomyelia, exacerbated by some form of trauma, such as a dog bite to the neck, a hard pull on a lead and possibly even Austen violently shaking himself. 6. The vet bills came to an additional $1,639.79 which, in view of the diagnosis, TD told the vet she would not pay....

7. ET & KT v CK & SK [2023] NZDT 662 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...reducing it from $150.00 to $110.00 to reflect the poor service. CK argued that that would be below cost as staff are paid $25.00 an hour, to which ET responded that sometimes they were only there half an hour. No timesheets or other financial information was presented by CK and SK. In the absence of sufficient evidence of cleaning costs, or mechanism for calculating a deduction, I accept ET’s calculation of a $40.00 deduction per clean. $40 for 6 cleans comes to $240.00. Are the C...

8. [2012] NZEmpC 161 O Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...from the bookings computer differed significantly from those in the end of month report for April, provided by the Reservations Manager in May 2009. 12 May meeting [11] On 11 May 2009 Mr O’Hagan wrote to Mr Andreef. The following day he requested an urgent meeting, at which he presented the letter. Mr Andreef was at home, preparing a speech that he was giving that evening at an awards ceremony. He was also attending to some work that needed to be completed as a matter of...

9. EN v KH [2022] NZDT 182 (23 September 2022) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...alternative $2,528.31 or $4,999.00 from Ms KH. This is on the basis of half (or most) of the $5,056.62 costs incurred in 2021 and 2022 for surveying, plumbing and engineering design work. 3. Mr EN said this work was necessary as the DCC had informed him that an existing, unconsented portion of driveway would be removed unless the proposed driveway was progressed. Mr EN said that he and Ms KH had an agreement based on the lodging of the resource consent and Ms KH did not inform him...

10. Wall v Malone [2010] NZWHT Auckland 21 [pdf, 262 KB]

    ...funds can be withdrawn from the $20,000 held in trust to cover the work needed to be carried out. (b) That the Code of Compliance will issue once the “conclusions” “8” paragraph have been carried out. (c) No further financial/building requests will be made upon me to complete other work. I look forward to hearing from you. Please feel free to phone me if you want to discuss anything further. Regards Jayne Malone” [22] The claimants‟ solicitor wrote to Mrs...