Search Results

1. N Ltd v B Ltd, SL, & I Ltd [2022] NZDT 236 (7 July 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...that the invoice for the clean-up and contamination testing fee is reasonable. Conclusion 22. For the reasons above, SL must pay N LTD, $11,615.00. Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 7 July 2022 Page 4 of 4 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 r...

2. LF & AS v NJ [2023] NZDT 36 (10 February 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...AS and LF are entitled to payment of $771.43, being $600 compensation on account of a breach of their right to quiet enjoyment, and $171.43 Bond refund. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 10 February 2023 Page 4 of 4 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...

3. DT v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 225 (12 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...remedy the issue, it follows that under the CGA, the applicant does not have a remedy under section 32 of the CGA and his claim must be dismissed. Referee: K. Armstrong Date: 12 May 2023 Page 4 of 4 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 reh...

4. ET v SC [2024] NZDT 713 (21 August 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...time, but SC refused to pay. ET had given a barbeque to SC some time before and he asked for it to be returned. SC did not return it. ET filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. These are claims for $768.95 for the charge for some work performed by the Applicant for the Respondent and the value of a barbeque. 3. The issues to be determined were as follows: a. Has SC breached a legally binding contract with ET to pay for his time in travelling to [Town 1] to deliver a plan...

5. ET & Ors v CG & KG [2024] NZDT 861 (11 October 2024) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...claim from the Respondents payment of $1,630.05 + $402.50 = $2,032.55. Accordingly, this amount is awarded. Referee: DTR Fuli CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 5 Date: 11 October 2024 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 at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...

6. LG v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 818 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...costs and refunding the filing fee. Those grounds are not applicable in this case; therefore, I dismiss the application for reimbursement of the filing fee. Referee: DTR Northwood Date: 14 October 2024 Page 4 of 4 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...

7. N Ltd v BQ & EQ [2024] NZDT 842 (12 December 2024) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...without being impacted by some object. In this case, he said, it was clear that the CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 shed had blown over the fences, as the photos showed it next to the broken pole. He said that the pole had had a transformer on the top of it, and so was top heavy in a way that other nearby poles were not. [6] EQ said that he had gone to inspect the pole after a power cut occurred. He had found the shed by the pole, perhaps two metres away from it, and he had...

8. ED v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 465 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...the monies paid to T Ltd for the Noxyde coating amounting to $12,308.41 recognising that ED had to reroof the entire property at a significantly greater cost. Referee: S Malaviya Date: 12 June 2024 Page 4 of 4 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 r...

9. DQ v SI [2025] NZDT 67 (3 April 2025) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...between them at the time, I accept DQ’s evidence that SI told her he had caused the damage at the time. I consider the only reason he would have said to that DQ is if he did, in fact, think he had caused the damage. 11. On the basis of the information before me I consider it is reasonable for me to infer that SI accepted liability because he thought he was liable, but that, at that time, he thought the costs of this liability would be covered by his insurance. SI later discovered...

10. Buck [2010] NZWHT Auckland 34 [pdf, 89 KB]

    1 [2010] NZWHT AUCKLAND 34 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6324: VICKI SUSAN BUCK AND LINDSAY WILLIAM LLOYD – 14 JANE DEANS CLOSE, RICCARTON, CHRISTCHURCH ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Vicki Buck and Lindsay Lloyd are the owners of a house at 14 Jane D...