Search Results

1. NC v NO [2023] NZDT 544 (20 September 2023) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...September 2023 at 9.15am. The respondent NO had been notified of the hearing but failed to attend, although his phone number seemed to be connected. On 16 June 2023, NO had emailed the tribunal. He acknowledged the existence of this proceeding and informed the tribunal that he was living overseas. As his phone number may have been different, he was requested to provide his overseas phone number, to facilitate a telephone hearing, but he failed to do that. Background On 4 January 2...

2. MU v OL [2023] NZDT 698 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...the car. 21. For these reasons I am satisfied that MU has proved his claim against OL and that OL should pay for the repairs in the sum of $4,847.25. Referee: K Johnson Date: 14 December 2023 Page 3 of 3 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...

3. Theobald v Coulter [pdf, 170 KB]

   ...0300-Theobald page 1 of 35 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. BACKGROUND 2 2. THE PARTIES 3 3. CHRONOLOGY 5 4. THE CLAIMS 5 5. FACTUAL ANALYSIS OF CLAIMS 7 Finish at Base of Wall Cladding 8 Installation of Flashings at Windows 9 Finish to Top of Parapets 10 Plaster Finish to External Corners 11 Ceiling in Bedro...

4. TX & AS v WU and ors [2023] NZDT 88 (22 March 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...couple. The price was much lower than they hoped but they liked the couple and wanted to help them. 12. The law relevant to this claim is the general law of contract and the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. A contract is a binding commitment formed by an offer made by one party and a subsequent acceptance by the other party. The relevant contract in this case is the sale and purchase agreement dated 22 June 2022. There is a well-known principle of contract law which is “caveat...

5. USM v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 291 (27 September 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...USM’s vehicle outside unit 3, the unit next to the gym. There are two ‘no parking’ signs on the windows, and a sign which carries the letters PO Ltd. Although the photographs do not show any details of the signs clearly, they convey enough information for me to find that USM parked in PO Ltd’s carpark. Did USM breach the terms of a contract or commit the tort of trespass? Was there a contract? 10. Q Ltd relies on the law of contract. It says the ‘no parking’ sign cons...

6. Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revision of Decision under former Act) [2023] NZACC 203 [pdf, 161 KB]

   IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 203 ACR 199/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 149 OF THE ACT BETWEEN GRAHAME SAVAGE Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 11 December 2023 Held at: Auckland/Tāmaki Makaurau Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented H Ifwersen for the Accident Compensation

7. LCRO 192/2017 KY v QW, Official Assignee (27 September 2019) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...apologised. [26] He says upon Mr GC’s subsequent retirement as a partner, and the Official Assignee later “becoming aware of the missing files/transactional information”, those responsibilities fell to him. He says he provided the information requested to the Official Assignee upon discovering Mr GC had not done so. (2) Application of funds received [27] Mr KY submits that following the demand made by the barrister in August 2013 for payment of outstanding fees, his “in...

8. Procter [2012] NZWHT Auckland 22 [pdf, 76 KB]

   1 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 22 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6853: ROGER GEORGE PROCTER, PAULINE JANICE PROCTER AND GEOFFREY LEONARD PROCTER – 31 The Crowsnest, Whitby, Porirua ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL [1] Roger, Pauline and Geoffrey Procter are the owners of a property a...

9. [2013] NZEmpC 200 Jonas v Menefy Trucking Ltd [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...little damage but the galvanised post had to be replaced. That was the incident resulting in Mr Jonas’ dismissal. [10] Prior to the incident Mr Jonas appears to have had concerns about congestion in Pacific’s yard. The Court was not informed about the type of truck he drove while working for Monex but in evidence, which was unchallenged, Mr Jonas said that when he was making the deliveries for Menefy, he became concerned because, “the site was very tight for me to g...

10. UI & II v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 34 (31 January 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...‘reasonable care and skill’ only requires that suppliers apply reasonable judgement, which in the case of diagnostic services, requires that they go with the probabilities, applying the most likely fixes first. 11. No independent evidence, in the form of other expert opinion for example, was provided by UI and II to show that D Ltd’s recommendation to replace the seals on the 13-year old car was unreasonable in the circumstances. Further, D Ltd state that the leak appears to have...