Search Results

1. UB and DB v ND [2020] NZDT 1391 (29 October 2020) [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...find that their actions in attempting to lower and adjust poles to fix the flat areas where water was pooling were following instructions given by ND. 13. Having made this finding, I note that UB’s internet research has yielded the further information that only experienced contractors should adjust poles on stretch tents, and that for ND to direct his customers to attempt this themselves was ill-advised and may have contributed to the problems experienced later that evening (althoug...

2. ST Ltd v FS [2023] NZDT 543 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...Ltd’s services were not carried out with reasonable care and skill and that the driveway is not fit for purpose. FS has provided many photographs of problems resulting from poor workmanship throughout the job, but the major issue is with the likely performance of the driveway over time given the contractual breaches described above, of the lack of mesh and the inadequate driveway thickness. Those issues are not aesthetic or minor, they relate directly to the overall strength and longev...

3. MN & GD v X Ltd [2025] NZDT 72 (12 August 2025) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...a reseller of the process used by the respondent, [reusable 1 The applicant has allowed a credit of $602.80 in invoice 05550 for unused materials. This amount has been allowed in the ordered amount. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 pool form], but he would not provide any opinion on the quality of the work, having not seen it other than in photographs. [8] JI’s evidence is the product, while capable of providing some remedy for a crooked pool edge, the outcome will always be...

4. Phon v Waitakere City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...situation is not comparable to the design. He implicitly acknowledges a causative link between the defects and the design could well be lacking. In addition, as in the other report, he confirms that details that were lacking from the plans (which formed the basis of the claim against the Council and Mr Kaill) were provided for in the Harditex technical information.

5. Application for attachment order [pdf, 820 KB]

   MOJ 204 July 24 Ministry of Justice Collections Unit www.justice.govt.nz/fines/about-civil-debt 0800 233 222 PAGE 1 OF 9 When should I use this form? This form lets you apply to recover a judgment debt directly from the judgment debtor’s income. Use this form if all the following apply: • you are either the judgment creditor or the judgment debtor • the money owed in a judgment or court order has not been paid • you want a simple, cheap enforcement solution • you can provide th...

6. Form 26A Fixed Fees H-I [pdf, 270 KB]

   Templates V15 – July 2018 page 1 –– 07/18 form 26a Legal aid file no. Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedules H & I Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Name of aided person Name of lead provider Name of law firm Provider number Firm number Court type Court of Appeal Supreme Court Court location Details of cl...

7. Keston v Redwood Corporation Ltd (Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings) [2022] NZHRRT 50 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHRRT 50 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 BACKGROUND [1] In May 2021 Mr Keston made an IPP6 request to the Redwood Corporation Limited trading as Pelican Club (Pelican Club) to access his personal information. [2] Pelican Club did not respond to the request within the statutory timeframe and Mr Keston complained to the Privacy Commissioner that his right to access his personal information under IPP 6 had been breached. [3] The Commiss...

8. TI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 84 (18 February 2025) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. T Ltd is to pay TI $8,199.00 by 12 March 2025. 2. Upon payment of the amount ordered above, ownership of the cabin will revert to T Ltd. T Ltd may retrieve the cabin from TI’s premises. T Ltd must inform TI as to when they will retrieve the cabin. TI may not unreasonably refuse any request for access by T Ltd for the purposes of removing the cabin. Background 1. In March 2024 TI purchased a ‘flatpack’ cabin from T Ltd....

9. Turner v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 36 [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...Mr Paykel gave evidence that the Harditex cladding should have been installed prior to the fascia. He attributed responsibility to the Harditex installer who should have either had the fascia removed before putting the Harditex in place or requested the roofer to return to remediate the flashing to protect the junction. I accept this evidence. [16] The defect resulted in decay to the framing below and adjoining return walls and led to the need to re-clad the affected wal...

10. LCRO 239/2016 RY v P AN and T AN (25 September 2018) [pdf, 314 KB]

    ...undertaking” provided by the builder’s lawyer, and secondly, “to seek clarification …[which] resulted in [Mr and Mrs AN] being given inaccurate assurances” by Mr RY concerning the deposit paid by them. [17] The Committee declined Mr and Mrs AN’s request for compensation because “there was always going to be an added cost component” to the purchase due to the insolvency of the builder. However, “in recognition of the additional expense and unnecessary stress incurr...