Search Results

1. NT v BP Ltd [2022] NZDT 5 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...“unit” is defined as the whole pallet (s247(1)(c)(i)). 10. The liability of the respondent is therefore limited in this case to $2,000.00. Referee: J Robertshawe Date: 17 January 2022 Page 3 of 3 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 a rehe...

2. KN v BT [2020] NZDT 1365 (9 December 2020) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...further agreement regarding the driveway fence but no agreement was ever reached. Is BT liable to contribute to the cost of the driveway fence as claimed by KN? 9. Once no agreement was reached regarding the driveway fence, KN needed to issue a formal fencing notice to BT. This is required by section 10 of the Fencing Act 1978, and the Act details what is required to be specified in such a notice. 10. KN’s email to BT of 31 July 2020 contained 4 quotations as attachments an...

3. FD v TN & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 30 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...probabilities. 10. As a result of the above finding, TN was not negligent and is not liable for the losses suffered by FD/J Ltd as a result of the collision. Referee Perfect Date: 25 January 2024 Page 3 of 3 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 a re...

4. CD Ltd v CO Ltd [2022] NZDT 279 (10 November 2022) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...interest on the claimed amount in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. Interest totals $171.41, so the total amount payable by CO Ltd is $9152.91. Referee Perfect Date: 10 November 2022 Page 3 of 3 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 a...

5. OS v E Ltd [2023] NZDT 89 (23 March 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...depended upon when they arrived in OS’ letterbox. h. There is no evidence of what else E Ltd ought to have done or could have done when OS contacted them on 19 December. There is nothing to suggest that another courier company could have perform better or faster. 13. For these reasons the claim is dismissed. Referee: LK Whineray Date: 23 March 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you b...

6. D Ltd v P Inc [2025] NZDT 229 (16 June 2025) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...entitled to payment, as it is the entity that P Inc entered into a contract with. 8. For the above reasons the claim is dismissed. L Thompson Disputes Tribunal Referee 16 June 2025 Page 3 of 3 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 a re...

7. T v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 79 (06 August 2015) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN E B T Complainant AND Viveg Lingam Mudaliar Adviser THE NAME AND ANY INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms S Blick, lawyer, MBIE, Auckland. Complainant: In person Adviser: Mr N King, Lawyer, Auckland. Date Issued:...

8. LCRO 162/2018 BQ v XR (29 September 2020) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...his position was better protected and put him less at risk of the terms of the separation being vulnerable to later challenge. [78] I think it reasonable for Mr BQ to have adopted that view. His approach presents as conventional. Mr BQ had formed a view that terms of the earlier s 21 agreement were favourable to Mr XR, and that he thought it prudent to ensure that the terms of a final settlement were properly recorded in a s 21A agreement. His decision to take steps to formalis...

9. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...Room Deck – Waterproof Membrane 4.4.1 The drawings show that this deck was to be constructed with timber joists, spanning from a wall plate fixed to the external wall of the house to a double beam on timber posts. The deck surface was to be formed by 18 mm plywood with a waterproof membrane dressed up 150 mm on all sides. This is what the designer wanted, although waterproofing would not be a requirement of the Building Code. 4.4.2 The deck has been tiled with large reconst...

10. AM and HM v TH and NH [2022] NZDT 69 (24 March 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

    ...months for a resolution, but were no further forwards. TH therefore would construct a fence on her land at her cost. She wanted her privacy restored and for HM and AM to stop coming onto her land. 7. After the fence was constructed, a neighbour informed TH that AM was spray painting her fence. Both the Police and the Council were called. The Council confirmed to HM and AM that the fence was inside TH’s boundary by having them tie a string line between the boundary pegs. 8. T...