Search Results

1. AET Ltd v ZVB Ltd [2013] NZDT 196 (3 August 2013) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...cut out of three joints. The sealant depth in two joints was satisfactory; however, the sealant in the third joint was found not to be deep enough. AET Ltd remedied the problem by putting more sealant over the existing sealant. [4] AET Ltd claims the outstanding sum of $4,224.69 plus $1,249.07 in interest and costs. [5] After some discussion, the parties agreed that the sealing depth should be half as deep as the width of a joint with a specified minimum depth. Is...

2. 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...

3. KT v DX [2024] NZDT 593 (28 August 2024) [pdf, 172 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...

4. CU v KI Ltd [2022] NZDT 19 (23 February 2022) [pdf, 201 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...

5. IU v KI & CI [2022] NZDT 111 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 207 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 111 APPLICANT IU RESPONDENT KI SECOND RESPONDENT CI The Tribunal orders: KI and CI are to pay $3,300.00 to IU on or before 5 September 2022. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. On or about September 2021, IU was driving her car along Street A and B on a day when there was high wind. As she drove past a...

6. UM v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 599 (22 November 2023) [pdf, 201 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 599 APPLICANT UM RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. UM, the applicant, and MI, representing the respondent, F Ltd(“F LTD”) both attended the hearing by teleconference. 2. UM built a new house and had a double-sided gas fire from F LTD installed in it around July 2022. About a month later, the...

7. [2020] NZREADT 02 - Clough v CAC 520, Bunn & Christiansen - Penalty (5 February 2020) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...had ended. Ms Linley would have known that Mrs Clough already knew about the offer for the property, having been party to the agency agreement when the offer was made. Ms Linley would therefore have known that the letter was not needed to inform Mrs Clough of the offer, as she already knew about it. The purpose of the letter requested by Mrs Clough could only have been to disclose information about the offer to a third party. [57] The letter provided to Mrs Clough was not addre...

8. ZD v K Ltd [2021] NZDT 1611 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...was refundable. Was K Ltd entitled to cancel the contract and retain the deposit paid? 8. A party who has entered into a contract with another party, may cancel the agreement if the other party makes it clear that it does not intend to perform or complete the performance of obligations under the contract (section 33, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)). If a contract is unlawfully cancelled, then in some instances the Tribunal may order a refund of some or all the mon...

9. QC v-DH Ltd & DN & MS [2021] NZDT 1601 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 176 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1601 APPLICANT QC RESPONDENT DH Limited SECOND RESPONDENT DN THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT MS The Tribunal orders: 1. DH Limited is to provide QC with the bank account details required for the payment of the amount payable under this order, by post, on or before 5pm on 9 July 2021. 2. On...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 37 Kang v Lee [pdf, 353 KB]

    ...YOUNG GOO KANG v KYOUNG YONG LEE [2020] NZEmpC 37 [27 March 2020] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2020] NZEmpC 37 EMPC 103/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for freezing and ancillary orders BETWEEN YOUNG GOO KANG Applicant AND KYOUNG YONG LEE Respondent Hearing: 26 March 2020 (by telephone conference and subsequent submissions) Appearances:...