Search Results

1. 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?

2. 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...

3. 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...

4. LCRO 87/2018 QZ v FZB (20 December 2019) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...18 April 2017 from Mr AL of the deed of appointment of trustees, and the authority to uplift, was that he would issue an invoice for his “attendances to date in relation to trust matters”, and when “cleared” would provide the documents requested.13 10 Mr VT's 19 April 2017 invoice: $750 plus GST (total $963.13). 11 Mr QZ's 7 June 2017 invoice: $2,360 plus GST (total, $2,792.20). 12 FZB, letter to Lawyers Complaints Ser...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 130 Packwood v ANZ Bank New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 494 KB]

   ...In the first part of her document, Ms Packwood says that false evidence was given to the Authority by two members of ANZ, and that what she described as new evidence was also presented at that hearing. She also says that evidence which she had requested from ANZ, which she says would have absolved her, was never given (because that point was not reached). [31] Then, responding to the strike out grounds raised by ANZ, she referred to the events that occurred on the second day of th...

6. M Ltd v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 416 (30 August 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...date, M Ltd also paid a sum of $2,777.25 to P Ltd in error. That money was supposed to be paid to another third party that M Ltd owed money to. It was paid into P Ltd’s bank account. 3. M Ltd contacted P Ltd soon after the error was noticed and requested that the money be repaid back to M Ltd. P Ltd refused to return the money. 4. M Ltd contacted its bank and paid for a recovery request which was actioned by M Ltd’s bank. That request from the bank was declined. 5. M Ltd...

7. [2008] NZEmpC AC 49/08 Clear v Waikato DHB [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...conflict was their different perceptions of who was responsible for individual patients. Ms Clear believed that patients were “hers.” From Mrs Parata’s point of view, generally the patients were cared for by a team of midwives unless one requested a particular midwife to care for her. This led to mutual antagonism. [25] Midwives who had worked at the Tokoroa Maternity Ward from the 1970s onwards gave their views about this relationship and the working environment. Whi...

8. Kennedy v Scanner Investments Ltd [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...page 4 of 34 • Mr John Lyttle, the WHRS Assessor, called by the adjudicator; • Mr Stephen Cody, a team leader in the building consents division of the Council, called by the Council; 1.7 Mr Clive Lewis did not formally give evidence, but he had filed comprehensive submissions and expert observations prior to the hearing, and he did endorse these opinions whilst asking questions of the other witnesses. As none of the parties had any questions to ask

9. [2014] NZEmpc 85 McCartney v Atlas Concrete Ltd and First Union [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...rules?”. [3] The starting point is, therefore, the relevant rules of the Union at the time it declined to continue to represent Mr McCartney in the matter of his personal grievance with his former employer. [4] Mr Cranney has, at the Court’s request, supplied certified copies of the Union’s rules for the years 2007 and 2008. Those were then the rules of the National Distribution Union Inc (NDU) but the fact that the rights and obligations in law of the NDU have been assumed...

10. [2021] NZACC 28 - Williams v ACC (4 February 2021) [pdf, 171 KB]

    ...appellant’s covered injury was not established. [2] The issue on this appeal is whether this decision was correct. Background [3] The appellant sustained an injury to his right foot on 28 September 2018 when, as described in an ACR45 form submitted to the Corporation, the fork of a forklift dropped onto his right foot. [4] On 28 September 2018, the appellant who then was 26, presented at the emergency department of Dunedin Hospital with a crush injury to his right fo...