Search Results

1. NT v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 489 (26 September 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...require a meal, and a warmer top, while waiting in [Town 2] for the next bus, and given the delay to rest at the backpacker, rather than at the bus station; and c. I also accept that her stress was aggravated by the 4 month delay in responding to her formal complaint. 10. I accept that the company has paid $170.00 in good will, but I do not accept the company’s position is that it has effectively provided $241.00 in compensation, being the replacement bus trip valued at $79.00 pro...

2. HI v HD Ltd [2023] NZDT 85 (15 March 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...HF Ltd did not act with reasonable care and skill. HF Ltd is not responsible for any compensation claimed by HI and the claim is dismissed. Referee: Souness - DTR Date: 15 March 2023 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 4 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. BG v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 638 (2 September 2024) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...were reasonably fit for purpose. 25. For these reasons I find that BG has not proved her claim and it is dismissed. Referee: K Johnson Date: 02 September 2024 Page 4 of 4 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...

4. IC v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 747 (16 October 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...contract which was made in writing; is clearly expressed to be at owner’s risk; and is signed by the parties. 9. For the avoidance of doubt, I accept: a. “in writing” and “signed” in this case refer to completion of an online booking form, which was completed by IC’s wife ND on the family’s behalf; b. for the purposes of the CCLA I am satisfied the steps necessary to complete the online booking in the sense that items are ‘written’ or ‘signed’ doe...

5. EN & JE v TT & EH [2024] NZDT 754 (5 November 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...therefore made for one week of rent. Are EN and JE entitled to be refunded the full amount of the bond? 8. The parties agree that it was EN who paid the money that was used for the bond. EN showed that it was noted on the tenancy bond lodgement form that he had contributed $2,720 and his partner had contributed $2,720, however, TT and EH were noted on the bond lodgement of having not paid the bond. EN said that as he had paid all the bond, it should have been transferred to him...

6. SI v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 326 (8 May 2024) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...[Country 2 for SINI? (c) What is the appropriate remedy? Did SI require an accompanying person to travel in business class with him under the travel insurance policy? 5. The general law of contract applies. A legally binding contract is formed where both parties intend to contract on agreed terms. For a contract to be enforceable the terms of the contract need to CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 be certain and clear. Once the terms of a contract are agreed, both parties a...

7. DU & MM v KE [2025] NZDT 41 (11 February 2025) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...obligations from 21 August 2024, and they therefore claim $3,667.42 as the outstanding sum owed by KE. 3. KE accepted that due to changes in his personal circumstances he was unable to continue to meet rent payments, and accepted he did owe money to his former flatmates. 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Is KE in breach of his obligation to pay shared rent? b. If so, is $3,667.42 the amount of rent arrears owed by him? c. Are DU and MM entitled to $3,667.42 as claimed?

8. QX v HC [2025] NZDT 164 (13 May 2025) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...[2025] NZDT 164 APPLICANT QX RESPONDENT HC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. The adjournment order dated 21 March 2025 sets out the background to QX’s claim. 2. Both parties provided additional information for the second hearing on 15 April 2024, as discussed below. 3. I apologise to the parties for the delay in releasing this decision. Findings 4. It is important to re-iterate the legal position in respect of private sa...

9. TH v ET [2025] NZDT 274 (3 July 2025) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 274 APPLICANT TH RESPONDENT ET The Tribunal orders: ET is to pay $850.00 to TH on or before 25 July 2025. The bank account for payment is on the Disputes Tribunal Claim Form. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. ET purchased a flat immediately adjacent to a property owned by TH. TH only occupies his property intermittently. The property ET purchased had previously been vacant. Prior to settlem...

10. 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...