Search Results

1. ABY v ZYF [2013] NZDT 125 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...claim is dismissed. Facts [1] The Applicant purchased a motor vehicle, a 2002 [vehicle] from the Respondent on 4 February 2011. This agreement is evidenced in writing and includes 24-month [insurer] warranty cover. [2] The Applicant claims that a term of this agreement of sale and purchase was that the Respondent would repair at its own cost any subsequent fault with the vehicle for 12 months after the sale. The Applicant further claims that the vehicle failed twice...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 18 Pathways Health Ltd v Moxon [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...psychology and social work and was employed by the plaintiff in 2005 as a registered health professional. [3] In August 2009, the plaintiff raised concerns with the defendant about her conduct. These ultimately led to the defendant receiving a formal warning in April 2010. The defendant raised a personal grievance which was lodged with the Authority. In addition to remedies for the personal grievance, the defendant also sought reimbursement of her costs of representation in the i...

3. DQ v UP [2022] NZDT 211 (9 December 2022) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...‘BS’. DQ received BS from UP on or about 3 September 2021 when he was around eight weeks of age. 2. DQ says that BS has two significant physical health issues which were diagnosed while he was still a young puppy, that is, an antebrachial limb deformity with carpal valgus in the left front leg, and double hip dysplasia. The diagnoses were provided to DQ by T Veterinary Hospital (“T Vets”), and by BX a specialist small animal surgeon from ABC University who has had two consultat...

4. Panchalingam v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 196 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...at: Wellington/Whanganui-a-tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 4 December 2023 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), Schedule 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 19 April 2023. The Reviewer dismissed an application fo...

5. Featherby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Cover) [2025] NZACC 110 (9 July 2025) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...4th and 5th ray amputation. Dr Wells recorded that Mr Featherby “now comes forward for skin grafting for wound coverage. Further surgery for right foot split thickness skin graft to aid wound healing”. [7] On 17 January 2024, an ACC injury claim form was filed by Dr Caitlin Orr- Walker, GP, for Mr Featherby’s accident on 15 November 2023, with the injury described as “R) foot laceration leading to non-healing foot wound and cellulitis requiring 4th and 5th ray amputation”...

6. McGregor v Accident Compensation Corporation [2025] NZACC 199 [pdf, 410 KB]

   ...conscious, he unlatched his safety belt, opened the door and fell head-first into a ditch. He rang his employer who took him to the emergency department at a hospital. [2] Although Mr McGregor received medical attention following the accident, a claim for cover for injuries was not made until ten months later. Mr McGregor received cover for a head injury and neck sprain in April 2024. The head injury was 2 subsequently confirmed by Dr Dunn GP as cover claimed for concussio...

7. Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...the document signed by Mr Thomas dated 19 August 2003, was subsequently endorsed with a building consent number (20022485) and signed as “okay” on 22 September 2003. There is no evidence that the Council declined to accept this document or requested any other document from the developer or ABC. 18 [59] The Council carried out final building inspections on 7 November 2003 and 3 December 2003. A CCC was issued on 4 December 2003. [60] Ms Divich submits tha...

8. DD Ltd & MH Ltd v EJ Ltd [2017] NZDT 1558 (6 March 2017) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...and as a result this is the measure of damages. 22. EJ Limited is required to compensate MH Ltd in the sum of $4,092.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 5 Referee: M Wilson Date: 6 March 2017 Page 5 of 5 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to app...

9. KT v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 748 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...2. KT claims $787.95 for removal, repair, and reinstallation, costs she paid to GE to fix the bidet fault. 3. X Ltd deny the claim saying they responded to an initial enquiry from the Community Care Trust in [City] about the bidet and gave information about the estimated costs of repair. X Ltd says KT then obtained services of her own choice from GE, and X Ltd should not be responsible for those costs. X Ltd does not accept the CGA applies to repairs of this bidet given the time pa

10. Q Ltd v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 883 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

    ...a used vehicle. 14. However at the hearing in April 2024, Mr L stated that he did not dispute the faults had arisen and that he would not have expected those parts to fail within the timeframe. He also did not dispute that the repairs were performed. Instead his position was only that the dealer had not been given the opportunity to remedy the faults. 15. In these circumstances, on balance, I find that there was a turbo and clutch fault, and that the vehicle was consequently not...