Search Results

1. DD & UD v AX & Ors [2024] NZDT 187 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...issued because the boss was angry when he found out their salesperson had given the [courtesy car] to DD and UD without authority. That, of course, is not N Ltd’s customers’ responsibility, and N Ltd’s recognition that hire payment is not due, is formalised via a declaration of non-liability. Are UD/DD liable to pay costs of repair to the [courtesy car]? 20. The circumstances of UD’s collision are such that, in the ordinary course of events, she would be liable to pay for...

2. BE v TT Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 838 (18 November 2024) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...poor condition and needs replacement? b. Did the Respondents misrepresent the condition of the roof? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 c. Can BE prove that vendors knew about the poor condition of the roof and have they withheld this information from her? Can BE prove that the roof is in poor condition and needs replacement? 7. BE she hired a builder to replace windows in the property with double-glazed windows in May 2024. The same builder was also asked to clean the gut...

3. [2016] NZEmpC 16 Best Health Products Ltd v Nee [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...Ltd v Mitchell [2010] NZCA 385, [2010] ERNZ 446 at [20]. [43] In my view, Ms Nee should be awarded 80 per cent of her costs; that is $1,800. GST is not payable; nor am I satisfied that a “bureau fee” of $40 for “File and storage, forms, faxes, photocopying and Toll/Cell phone calls” should be the subject of the costs award. Costs with regard to BHPL’s application for leave [44] Mr Ogilvie advised that Ms Nee incurred costs in connection with the application...

4. Thoman v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 26 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...The Registrar filed a Statement of Complaint; the central issue is an allegation that the adviser dishonesty made a claim the complainant was a diesel mechanic in an application for residence. [2] The complainant says the adviser presented this information to Immigration New Zealand without his knowledge. [3] The issue is a very serious allegation as it involves the adviser’s alleged failure to address issues with her client and a claim she made a dishonest representation to Immigrat...

5. PV v OS & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 172 (3 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...panel beater to get the car fixed. PV refused and filed a claim with J Ltd. 5. The initial claim amount was for $4,670.03. I noted that the repairers’ invoice was for $3,962.53. At the hearing J Ltd said they neglected to include the rental information. They therefore deducted the rental charge from its claim. The claim amount is therefore $3,962.53. 6. OS and B Ltd are disputing liability. WS is the director and shareholder of B Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 T...

6. T v C Ltd v IQ & LQ [2023] NZDT 230 (18 September 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...hearing that this was a fair outcome and was no longer making any claim against IQ & LQ. Referee: Hannan DTR Date: 2 November 2023 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...

7. CU Ltd v ZS & HC Ltd [2023] NZDT 588 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from Page 2 of 4 the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision....

8. TD v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 414 (14 August 2023) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...first repair, she would have had the same answer as U Ltd gave at the hearing, which was that she caused the problem, and the motorhome was of acceptable quality. 13. TD did not lose her right to claim from U Ltd under the CGA because she informed U Ltd of a problem and U Ltd did not accept it had liability for repairs. What amount should be ordered? 14. I have ordered all the amounts claimed by TD except for the $350.00 for incidentals. I accept a friend helped out howe...

9. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...that by the time those inspections were undertaken, it is more reasonable that BM (and EM’s partner KM who accompanied BM) were more likely directly relying on their inspection and observations of how the vehicle looked and performed, rather than directly on KU’s earlier statement; g. for the avoidance of doubt I also do not accept on these facts that the provision of an A/C belt by KU (which is now acknowledged to be of the wrong type) was a representa

10. BI v O Inc [2024] NZDT 725 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

    ...not agree with what he describes as “a political narrative of oppressor/oppressed racist ideology.” He also takes issue with a number of public statements made by various members of the leadership of O Inc which he says expressed erroneous information and showed O Inc in a poor light. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. KT, the Chief Executive of O Inc, provided a different context for the comments BI complained about. He also stated that O Inc has the largest proporti...