Search Results

1. NC v VU Ltd [2023] NZDT 546 (12 October 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...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 rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...

2. OX v PM Ltd [2020] NZDT 1331 (22 June 2020) [pdf, 498 KB]

   ...was unable to make a finding that any assurances had been made of a refund that were breached. Mr X presented a case from 2018 in which PM was fined for failing to properly advise its customers of their CGA rights. This case was regarding other claims, and resulted from a prosecution under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) that would be outside the Disputes Tribunal’s jurisdiction to pursue. I was not able to infer from these breaches that PM could be liable in this case. 27. Howeve...

3. IAA v Maerean [2013] NZIACDT 6 (07 February 2013) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...immigration and recruitment services. [45] The usual practice was to have Skype interviews so BIL could promote the client to New Zealand employers. Greenfields would gather information so that BIL could process the clients’ immigration and employment applications. [46] When the visa to work in New Zealand was approved, there were Philippines’ regulatory requirements. Greenfields was obliged to ensure that the engagement was genuine and the employee had the protection of insurance...

4. WQ v QZ [2023] NZDT 420 (14 September 2023) [pdf, 171 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 420 APPLICANT WQ RESPONDENT QZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons: 1. In May 2022, QZ commenced renting the downstairs premises of WQ’s house. WQ lived upstairs. The arrangement was recorded in a ‘Flat/House sharing agreement’ which included payment of a $900.00 bond, rent of $450.00 a w...

5. ND v F Ltd [2024] NZDT 525 (8 July 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 525 APPLICANT ND RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ND enrolled her son, E, at F Ltd for extra English tuition to get him prepared for NCEA Level 1. E attended 90 minute classes every Tuesday. ND however believes the programme was inadequate and that it did not prepare her son for the exams. Although F Ltd provided positive

6. LP v MT LCRO 74/2013 (22 October 2014) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...November after a telephone call from Ms LP, and again by Ms NQ on 24 November. [15] On 24 November the mortgagee’s solicitor replied: “Our client was not obliged to assign the EQC claim to your client. Therefore they have declined your client’s request to have the EQC claim assigned.”4 [16] A file note by Ms NQ indicates that she discussed this with Mr MT on 28 November. Mr MT agreed that the mortgagee’s solicitor was correct and that Ms LP should take a pragmatic appro...

7. SA v TD & I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1646 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 139 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1646 APPLICANT SA RESPONDENT TD SECOND RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. TD and I Ltd are to pay SA $3,075.96 on or before 29 October 2021. Reasons: 1. On 24 August 2020 SA was driving his car on [Road A] in [Suburb B] when he was involved in a collision with a vehicle driven by TD. SA seeks an ord...

8. LVT Notice of Hearing 24 May 2021 [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...may vacate the hearing. If settlement is reached prior to the hearing, please notify the Tribunal immediately. 1. SCHEDULING AND HEARING FEES The scheduling fee is incurred when the proceeding is scheduled for a substantive hearing or any other application or proceeding (apart from an interlocutory application). The scheduling fee is not refundable if the hearing is no longer required. The party bringing the proceeding is liable to pay hearing fees. • The first half-day is free. Af...

9. CH v XO LCRO 119 / 2010 (3 May 2011) [pdf, 182 KB]

   LCRO 119/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 3 BETWEEN CH of Auckland Applicant AND XO of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In May 2008 the Applicant and his wife approached the Respondent for advice...

10. [2019] NZEnvC 035 Taylor v Small [pdf, 269 KB]

    ...dated 21 December 2018 (first memorandum), the memorandum of counsel for the applicants in reply dated 29 January 2019 and the memorandum for the respondents' in response dated 7 February 2019 (respondent's response memorandum). Amount of claim [6] The respondents have incurred total solicitor/client and witness costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings of $65,385.38. Of that, $63,156.59 (including G8T) are solicitor/client costs and disbursements and $2,228.76...