Search Results

1. [2011] NZEmpC 131 Yang v L E Builders Ltd [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...for L E Builders Limited Judgment: 18 October 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] After hearing a full and excellent argument from both counsel, in support of and in opposition to the plaintiff’s application to join the former sole director of the defendant company Lawrence Leong Eng Loo as a party, I determined that the most appropriate course was to adjourn the application until the substantive challenge has been disposed of. The following are my reason...

2. K Ltd v V Ltd [2023] NZDT 598 (27 November 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 598 APPLICANT K Ltd RESPONDENT V Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. V Ltd is to pay K Ltd $19,999.00 by Monday 18 December 2023. 2. Upon payment of the $19,999.00 to K Ltd, ownership of the [truck] is to immediately be transferred to V Ltd. 3. V Ltd can arrange for collection of the [truck] from [city 1], at their cost. Reasons: 1. K, represe...

3. BN & UN v ON [2023] NZDT 250 (21 June 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 250 APPLICANT BN and UN RESPONDENT ON The Tribunal orders: ON is to pay BN and UN the sum of $3565.00 by no later than 13 July 2023. Reasons: 1. BN and UN arranged for ON, director of B Ltd, to sign off and submit building plans to Council. BN and UN were invoiced the sum of $3565 by B Ltd on 25 August 2022.

4. JX v SB [2024] NZDT 379 (6 June 2024) [pdf, 130 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 379 APPLICANT JX RESPONDENT SB The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim by JX against SB is proved. 2. SB is to pay JX the sum of $455.00 on or before 5:00 pm on 23 June 2024. 3. If SB wants to pick up the fridge, he is to arrange a time that is suitable with JX and JX is to make the fridge available. 4. SB is not to pick up the fridge unti...

5. DW v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 618 (6 September 2024) [pdf, 170 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 618 APPLICANT DW RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 10 May 2024 DW attempted to book two rooms for two nights at H Ltd’s accommodation, trading as [accommodation], via [website]. 2. She received no confirmation of the booking but noticed that payment had gone through so she con...

6. BMN v Stonewood Group Ltd [2024] NZHRRT 64 [pdf, 324 KB]

   ...(the USB) and personal cellphone from his desk at the Stonewood office. One week later BMN’s employment was terminated. [2] Despite requests Stonewood did not return BMN’s personal information that they had collected from him. [3] BMN claims Stonewood has interfered with his privacy by collecting his personal information in breach of the Privacy Act 1993 (the Act).3 [4] Stonewood acknowledges it took BMN’s work laptop and personal cellphone but deny taking the USB and den...

7. Notice of appeal [docx, 39 KB]

   ...notice of appeal template About the notice of appeal [bookmark: Purpose]To make an appeal to the District Court, a notice of appeal must be filed. Except when the legislation you are filing under states that the appeal is made by way of an originating application (in those circumstances please use the originating application template). How to use the template All the required fields are set out in the template on the following two pages. The sections that you have to fill out are marked with...

8. [2024] NZEmpC 174 A Ifraz Investments Ltd v Jamal [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...had acted for the defendant, Mohazam Jamal, when the proceedings were before the Authority. However, the representative did not have authority to accept service in these proceedings and on 21 August 2023, the Court directed that the statement of claim be served personally on the defendant. 1 Jamal v A Ifraz Investments Ltd [2023] NZERA 317 (Member Arthur). [3] The Court registry has followed up with the plaintiff multiple times to ascertain whether the statement of cla...

9. ACN v ZXR Ltd [2013] NZDT 115 (26 September 2013) [pdf, 73 KB]

   ...balance of probabilities; that is, which party’s account I find the more probable. Decision [11] I find that the Respondent is liable for repairs to the hydraulics and gear box water/oil issues, but not the other amounts claimed. My reasons are set out below. Liability in general [12] The Respondent claims that it should not be liable at all for any of the items claimed because the sale was on behalf and no warranties given. [13] My finding on this...

10. LCRO 276/2013+293/2013+242/2016 CS v VN, PR and ZW ZM v VC [pdf, 274 KB]

    ...276/2013 LCRO 293/2013 LCRO 242/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING two determinations of the [Area] Standards Committee BETWEEN CS Applicant/Respondent AND VN, PR AND ZW Respondents/Applicants The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr VN, Mr PR and Ms ZW (the complainants) and M...