Search Results

1. Hayward v Barnardos NZ Inc (Jurisdiction) [2022] NZHRRT 22 [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...action is unnecessary or inappropriate; or (b) decide to investigate the complaint under subpart 2. (3) As soon as practicable after making a decision under subsection (2), the Commissioner must notify the complainant of the decision. [13] The application of PA, s 98(1)(a) was discussed in Re Jones (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2021] NZHRRT 19 at [14]: [14] ... Proceedings under s 98(1)(a) are only possible where the Commissioner first decides to use best endeavours to secure a...

2. Cambie v ACC [2012] NZACA 7 [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...Respondent BEFORE THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION APPEAL AUTHORITY R Bedford HEARING at Wellington on 15 December 2011 APPEARANCES/COUNSEL Mylinh Dao for appellant Alistair Barnett for respondent INTERIM DECISION [1] This is an application for leave to appeal out of time against a review decision which was delivered in 1993, upholding the Corporation’s decision of 9 March 1993, to decline the appellant’s claim under the Accident Compensation Act 1982 for cover for h...

3. Williams v Cotter-Arlidge - Okaihau 3C2 (2019) 77 Tākitimu MB 51 (77 TKT 51) [pdf, 416 KB]

   ...returns had been received since 2003 and IRD were considering prosecution. No other person was engaged for accounting work by the trust. To obtain financial records, Mr Williams contacted advisory trustee Aoterangi Cotter, who both provided the information and signed Mr Williams’ engagement form. The applicant submits this form was signed on 27 April 2012. Mr Williams states he was also approached by the Māori Land Court regarding a review of the trust at a similar time. [9] F...

4. Paraone-Kawiti v Maori Trustee - Pukahakaha East 5B [2013] Chief Judge's MB 354 (2013 CJ 354) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...the 19 March 2010 hearing on the day of the hearing; (b) Counsel for the advisory trustees' application was made without giving sufficient time or formal notice to the applicant, which did not grant him the opportunity to avoid the costs now claimed; (c) The applicant has unnecessarily incurred costs as a direct result of the advisory trustees actions and omissions as aforesaid; (d) The advisory trustees actions were unreasonable and disentitle them to be indemnified or reimb...

5. CV v IT [2023] NZDT 185 (31 July 2023) [pdf, 225 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 185 APPLICANT CV RESPONDENT IT The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. IT and FS contracted CV to erect a kitset [Supplier] cabin on their property in [Suburb]. 2. At that time CV’s details were listed on the “Find a builder or tradesperson” page on [Supplier]’s website. 3. CV ca...

6. KT v BM [2021] NZDT 1571 (22 July 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1571 APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT BM The Tribunal orders: BM is to pay KT $350.00 by 5 August 2021. Reasons: 1. KT seeks repayment of a bond of $350.00 from BM. 2. Both parties attended the hearing. Background 3. On 12 August 2020 KT signed a flatmate agreement with BM. The agreement was to start on 24 August. Weekly...

7. T Ltd v C Ltd & CD [2023] NZDT 298 (10 August 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 298 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT C Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT CD APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) GN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 20 May 2022, temporary metal scaffolding erected to cover a second story roof top sw...

8. UW v X Ltd [2022] NZDT 290 (12 December 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 290 APPLICANT UW RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons Did X Ltd fail to provide UW with a licence he was entitled to receive? 1. UW has claimed that by withholding the PG 2 (paragliding) license he was entitled to receive, X Ltd breached his contractual rights...

9. XL v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 466 (7 June 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 466 APPLICANT XL RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. XL hired a truck from D Ltd trading as IJ in December 2023, selecting the ‘Q’ insurance option. When he returned the truck after the hire, the IJ staff member pointed out damage high on the side panel of the truck near the roof, and advise...

10. WQ Ltd v X Ltd & CG ta UQ [2021] NZDT 1429 (3 May 2021) [pdf, 218 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1429 APPLICANT WQ Limited FIRST RESPONDENT X Limited SECOND RESPONDENT CG trading as UQ The Tribunal orders: CG and X Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay $828.00 to WQ Limited by 25 May 2021. Reason Was the vehicle of acceptable quality? 1. The claim made by WQ Limited (WQ)...