Search Results

1. Taniora v Crown - Pukemakoiti 2 and 4 (2018) 390 Aotea MB 268 (390 AOT 268) [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20170004105 UNDER Section 238, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Pukemakoiti 2 and 4 Block BETWEEN BARBARA TANIORA AS TRUSTEE OF THE TANIORA MARU WHĀNAU TRUST Applicant AND MARY CROWN, MOERA HUGHES, GRAEME KILGOUR, WEO MAAG, MORGAN RATA, THOMAS TUWHANGAI AND RAYMOND WI AS TRUSTEES OF THE PUKEMAKOITI TRUST Respondent Hearings: 18 June 2018, 387 Aotea MB 126-136 7 December 2017...

2. SN v K Ltd [2022] NZDT 117 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 108 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 115 APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. SN and K Ltd purchased adjoining pieces of land at a new subdivision. SN owns [Property 1], and her house was finished first. SN’s builder advised her that a retaining wall needed to be constructed before a fence could be built...

3. BD v J Ltd ES [2021] NZDT 1648 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 129 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1648 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT J Limited SECOND RESPONDENT ES The Tribunal orders: 1. BD is to pay J Limited the sum of $3,753.42 on or before 15 July 2021. 2. BD’s claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 29 June 2020 ES was driving towards Auckland on State Highway 16 in lane 4. He indicated to change lanes,...

4. QQ v IK & YM [2023] NZDT 357 (22 June 2023) [pdf, 150 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 357 APPLICANT QQ FIRST RESPONDENT IK SECOND RESPONDENT YM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 1 December 2022, QQ bought a 2013 [car] from IK. He says IK misrepresented the vehicle and he claims compensation of $4,999.00. 2. On 8 March, the Tribunal added IK’s wife Y...

5. I Ltd v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 71 (10 February 2023) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...having substantial technical expertise. It is imperative that all aspects of any intended use be analysed and all pertinent information be reviewed concerning the component or system in a current product catalogue. Due to the diversity of possible applications and operating conditions for these components and systems, the user, through its own analysis, testing and evaluation, is solely responsible for making the final selection of the products and systems and ensuring that all safety warn...

6. MT v UI [2022] NZDT 54 (9 May 2022) [pdf, 148 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 54 APPLICANT MT RESPONDENT UI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: UI is to pay X Ltd the sum of $8,500.20 on or before 7 June 2022. X Ltd is to pay the first $1,000.00 of that sum to MT. Reasons: 1. UI undertook hedge trimming work for MT. MT now claims that UI put the hedg...

7. IAA v van Zyl [2012] NZIACDT 37 (31 July 2012) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...[6] The first component is whether Mr van Zyl discharged his professional obligations by checking the papers, and filing them. The questions that arise are: [6.1] Was it lawful for people who were not licensed immigration advisers to gather the information, and interact with Mr K? [6.2] Even if it was lawful, was it an acceptable way of discharging Mr van Zyl’s professional duty to these clients? [7] The second ground of complaint is that Mr van Zyl misled Immigration New Zealand,...

8. UQ & XQ v B Ltd & BT [2023] NZDT 743 (8 December 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...orders: A. BT is added as Second Respondent. B. B Ltd, as the Second Respondent’s insurer, is to pay UQ and XQ $4,704.15 on or before 12 January 2024. Reasons 1. On or about 22 October 2022, a collision between the cars belonging to the Applicants and the Second Respondent occurred. Both parties had insurance, and the Second Respondent was held liable for the damage. The Applicants’ insurance company (C Ltd) took about 12 weeks to arrange a repair, during which time th...

9. [2019] NZEmpC 23 Rachelle v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 437 KB]

   ...NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2019] NZEmpC 23 EMPC 250/2017 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application to strike out part of the proceedings BETWEEN GEORGINA RACHELLE Plaintiff AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: G Rachelle, plaintiff in person P...

10. VE & BU v TZ [2022] NZDT 31 (8 April 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

    ...unconditional offer on TZ’s property on 24 October 2021 in a multiple-offer situation and their offer was accepted the same day. Settlement took place on 2 December 2021. 2. During removal of vinyl planks from the garage floor after settlement, the applicants’ builder noticed wide cracks which were subsequently determined by a structural engineer to be the result of compromised structural foundation capacity due to soil settlement. 3. VE and BU claim $22,000.00 being the cost...