Search Results

1. IH v QM [2024] NZDT 389 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 389 APPLICANT IH RESPONDENT QM The Tribunal orders: QM is to pay IH the sum of $11,948.00 on or before 26 June 2024. Reasons: 1. QM listed a [car] on [platform] for $1.00 reserve. 2. IH bid on the auction. Shortly before the auction ended the two highest bids were removed, leaving IH the winner of the auction. 3. IH was concerned about the late removal of the two highest bids and ask...

2. TN & UX v N Ltd [2025] NZDT 81 (2 April 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...money had been stolen. N Ltd advised TN and UX in a meeting on 7 November 2025 that their wedding would not be able to be hosted by it, unless they paid their deposit again. The applicants were accused of somehow having facilitated the burglary and informed by N Ltd that they would not get a refund of their deposit. The procedural background to this order 2. Today was the second hearing in this matter, scheduled by way of telephone conference. The first hearing, also a telephone co...

3. Hearn v Parklane Investments Limited [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...liability or in turn seek indemnity from others. PRELIMINARY ISSUES The Parties First and Tenth Respondents - Woodward Shelf Company No. 1 Limited and Mr Hayim Nachum [3] The first respondent, Woodward Shelf Company No 1 Limited, formerly Boulcott Investments Group Limited, previously known as Parklane Investments Limited (Parklane) was the previous owner and developer of the site on which the property is situated. Parklane took part in some of these proceedings,...

4. L and M v EQC [2019] CEIT-2019-0036 [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...determines whether the Applicant is entitled to recover the sum of $18,697.02 from the Respondent (EQC) said to be due to her for emergency repair works carried out to a number of properties owned by her or whether she fully and finally settled those claims with EQC and is, therefore, not entitled to recover that amount. [2] For the reasons that follow, I find that the Applicant is bound by the settlement agreement she entered into with EQC, the result of which is that the Applicant...

5. Cook v Department of Corrections [2023] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...therefore lack jurisdiction in respect of the second request.24 [80] Mr Tennet accepted that conclusion on jurisdiction but emphasised he drew this event to our attention in support of his submission that the Department’s responses to the two requests was evidence of a systemic failure to respond appropriately and lawfully to information requests. [81] We do not consider that the Department’s responses to the two requests provide an evidential foundation that supports Mr Tennet...

6. FH v GJ LCRO 87/2014 (7 Aug 2015) [pdf, 77 KB]

   ...[15] In addition to filing proceedings against Mr GJ and HK after the complaint was made, Ms FH also laid a complaint with the Police. The police complaint acknowledgement records the complaint as being that of “Theft (over $1,000).” Ms FH requested the Committee to defer consideration of Mr GJ’s complaint about her until these had been disposed of. The Committee nevertheless continued with its consideration of the complaint and its determination. [16] The disciplinary proc...

7. AS Ltd v ZH Ltd [2014] NZDT 659 (26 September 2014) [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL [2014] NZDT 659 BETWEEN AS LIMITED APPLICANT AND ZH LIMITED RESPONDENT Date of Order: 26 September 2014 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed, the contract dated 18 March 2014 stands and the contract dated 30 April 2014 is cancelled as of the date of this order. Facts [1] On 18 March 2014 the manager of AS Limited’s Z store signed a written agreement wit...

8. CC v LL [2021] NZDT 1693 (28 May 2021) [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...puppy due to a change in his personal circumstances. He requested a refund of his deposit. LL responded, “I’ve got a person interested but he has yet to put the deposit in once he does I’ll refund your deposit.” However, LL subsequently informed CC that a few buyers had backed out, so he would not be refunding the deposit. 3. CC now claims a refund of $500.00 together with his $45.00 filing fee. The issue to be determined is whether LL is obliged to refund the deposit. Is LL ob...

9. [2022] NZEmpC 200 Stewart v AFFCO New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...before and after August 2020, he regarded himself as bound by the obligation to make himself available for such overtime. [19] He said he was a member of a relatively small service department. In reality there was no option to decline overtime if requested. To do so would have placed a lot of stress on co-workers. He considered there was “an absolute expectation” that he would undertake this work. [20] Overtime was common on Mondays to Fridays. It was also common on Sat...

10. Te Manutukutuku 77 [pdf, 7.6 MB]

    ...plant variety rights regime, one of four issues heard in stage 2. The report was prioritised to provide the Crown with the Tribunal’s findings ahead of its introduction of legislation on this matter. In July, the claimants and Crown jointly requested Tribunal-led media- tion, an alternative pathway for the resolution of claims available under schedule  2 to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Led by Judge Damian Stone and Prue Kapua, in October 2020 the mediation succeeded in settli...