Search Results

1. [2009] NZEmpC AC 29/09 Ogilvy NZ Ltd v Whitten [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...August 2009 JUDGMENT OF B S TRAVIS [1] The applicant, Ogilvy New Zealand (Ogilvy NZ) has applied for leave to challenge out of time a costs determination of the Employment Relations Authority issued on 31 March 2009. The statement of claim challenging the determination was two days late. The application for leave has been opposed by the respondent. [2] With the agreement of counsel, it was determined that, in order to avoid further costs, the matter should be determ...

2. Kingsnorth v Crawford – Motuaruhe 5D Block (2018) 185 Waiariki MB 106 (185 WAR 106) [pdf, 377 KB]

   ...THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20170006751 A20170006804 UNDER Sections 19 and 18(1)(a), Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Motuaruhe 5D Block BETWEEN JOSEPH KINGSNORTH Applicant AND CAROLINE CRAWFORD First Respondent AND JENNIFER CRAWFORD, CAROLINE CRAWFORD AND COLLEEN HIGGINS AS TRUSTEES OF THE HARIATA KINGSNORTH WHĀNAU TRUST Second Respondent AND TE PORA BISHOP, LOUIS...

3. [2016] EmpC 128 Vasona Networks Inc v Sunder [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...Networks Incorporated (Vasona) seeks leave to challenge a determination of the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) out of time. 1 [2] The Authority’s determination was issued on 16 June 2016. In that proceeding Mr Rajeev Sunder claimed that he was unjustifiably dismissed by Vasona and he sought reinstatement to his position, or to a position no less advantageous to him as well as financial remedies. The issues identified by the Authority in its determination were:...

4. Holden v Hanns [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...Holden & Anor v Smitheram & Ors – PROCEDURAL ORDER NO. 7 File No: TRI 2008-101-000109/ DBH 05331 Court: WHT Adjudicator: R Pitchforth Date of Decision: 1 September 2009 Background In this Procedural Order, the Tribunal deals with applications to remove and join certain parties. In particular the Tribunal looks at the role of suppliers and whether they are responsible for the misapplication of their products. Consolidation of Claims This claim has been consolidated wi...

5. HC v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 391 (13 September 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   1 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 391 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: X Ltd is to pay $7,889.57 to HC on or before Friday 13 October 2023. Reasons: 1. In December 2019 HC purchased a house owned by X Ltd by auction. Prior to the marketing of the property the vendor renovated an upstairs ensuite bathroom and a downstairs bathroom. Both bathrooms had identical...

6. CB v UH Ltd [2022] NZDT 150 (26 August 2022) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...pay the sum of $16,129.45 to CB on or before 16 September 2022. Reasons: 1. The applicant CB is the owner of a property at [location redacted]. The neighbouring property at [location redacted] has some very tall trees near the boundary, and CB claims that the previous owner kept the trees trimmed when he raised the issue from time to time. In March 2018, the property was purchased by the respondent UH Ltd. CB claims that within a few months of purchase, the roof of his shed was damage...

7. KG & LG v HL [2022] NZDT 11 (28 April 2022) [pdf, 119 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 11 APPLICANT KG APPLICANT LG RESPONDENT HL The Tribunal orders: HL is to pay KG and LG the sum of $7,478.00 on or before 26 May 2022. Reasons: 1. KG and LG live next door to HL. 2. In August or September 2021 seven ake ake trees along the fence line between the properties, on LG and KG’s property, wer

8. TX v SM [2021] NZDT 1574 (5 August 2021) [pdf, 167 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1574 APPLICANT TX RESPONDENT SM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 8 December 2019 TX and her partner brought home their puppy, T, for whom they had paid a deposit to SM to purchase, some four weeks earlier. The total purchase price paid was $3000.00. 2. When T was about 6.5 months o...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 009 Puketotara Lodge Ltd v Bluegum Gospel Hall Trust [pdf, 137 KB]

   ...In the alternative Bluegum seeks further time to respond to Puketotara’s notice of opposition and application. [5] At the request of the Registry, Puketotara indicated by email dated 1 February 2024, that it had no objection to Bluegum’s requested deferral of a determination on the costs application. [6] Bluegum does not set out in its application the grounds on which it seeks that the determination of costs be deferred. In support of its original position for a stay on en...

10. Tautuku Block XIII Section 14 Trust v Cairns (2012) 16 Te Waipounamu MB 63 (16 TWP 63) [pdf, 178 KB]

    ...Tautuku Survey District - Recovery of rental arrears, vacant possession and re- entry on Māori Freehold Land BETWEEN TAUTUKU BLOCK XIII SECTION 14 TRUST, TAUTUKU BLOCK XIII SECTION 15 TRUST AND TAUTUKU BLOCK XIV SECTION 2 TRUST Applicants AND ELIZABETH PATRINE CAIRNS AND RICHARD DAVIS CAIRNS Respondents Hearing: 9 March 2010, 2 Te Waipounamu MB 233 6 October 2010, 5 Te Waipounamu MB 49 3 November 2010, 5 Te Waipounamu MB 298 16 November 2012 28 Nov...