Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 152 Halse v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...Court, Mr Halse has had to continue with the proceedings when they could have been resolved in mediation. [7] Mr Halse opposes any uplift and submits that the Hamilton City Council should have provided sworn affidavits in evidence to support its claim, with the ability for Mr Halse to cross-examine witnesses. Mr Halse seeks a hearing to enable him to test the evidence and provide further oral submissions. The Hamilton City Council is entitled to costs [8] While I acknowledge...

2. Recording Industry Association of New Zealand v TCLE-A-T5877102 [2013] NZCOP 2 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...1994 BETWEEN RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED Applicant (Rights Owner) AND TCLE[A]-T5877102 Respondent (Account Holder) BEFORE THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL HEARING ON THE PAPERS DECISION The Application [1] This is an application by Recording Industry Association of New Zealand Incorporated (“the Applicant”) for an order under s.122O of the Copyright (Infringing File Sharing) Amendment Act 2011 (“the Act”). The Applicant...

3. A Nair v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 32 (19 March 2014 ) [pdf, 147 KB]

   ...Issued: 19 March 2014 2 DECISION Preliminary [1] The complainant lodged an expression of interest and Immigration New Zealand invited him to apply for a residence visa. [2] The adviser was acting for him; she did not lodge the application until his current visa had expired. The result was Immigration New Zealand could not consider his application. [3] The complainant says he provided all the information requested. In addition, a staff member in the adviser’s pr...

4. KP v MN [2023] NZDT 776 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 776 APPLICANT KP RESPONDENT MN The Tribunal orders: MN is to pay to KP $5,100.00 on or before 5:00pm on Friday 23 February 2024. Reasons 1. In or around May 2023, KP was looking for a car to purchase for her son. KP saw an ad via Marketplace for a [motor vehicle] by MN. The car was advertised as coming with a ‘mechanical warrant...

5. [2019] NZEmpC 100 NZ Compliance and Repairs Ltd v Mistry [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...Ansell, counsel for defendant Judgment: 19 August 2019 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] These proceedings involve a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority dated 8 March 2019.1 [2] A statement of claim and statement of defence have been filed. Mr Finnigan, counsel for the defendant, filed a memorandum of counsel accompanying the statement of defence. He complained that the statement of claim did not fully and clearly set out the g...

6. LI v UC & IC [2021] NZDT 1609 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 210 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1609 APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT UC and IC The Tribunal orders: 1. IC is joined as a respondent to this claim. 2. UC and IC are to pay to LI the sum of $2,000.00 on or before 16 July 2021. Reasons: 1. In March 2021, UC and IC advertised for sale a 2011 [car] on Trade Me and a local social media page. The origi...

7. DE v WV Ltd [2015] NZDT 840 (4 September 2015) [pdf, 132 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 840 BETWEEN DE APPLICANT AND WV LIMITED RESPONDENT Date of Order: 4 September 2015 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that WV Limited is to pay the sum of $1,465.10 directly to DE on or before 25 September 2015. Facts [1] DE was engaged by WV Limited as a contract builder and signed a written contract on 29 June 2014. In fact the contract is...

8. EQ & EQQ v UJ Ltd & UJU [2016] NZDT 955 (17 August 2016) [pdf, 87 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 955 BETWEEN EQ APPLICANT AND EQQ SECOND APPLICANT AND UJ LTD RESPONDENT AND UJU SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 17 August 2016 Referee: Referee Whineray ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] In June 2014, Mr EQ and Mrs EQQ purchased the house at XX Street Christchurch. By December 20

9. Vikashwarjeet v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 27 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...licence, she did not tell them and arrange for continuing representation. [4] The adviser generally disputes the facts alleged in support of the complaint, and claims she delivered professional services properly. She says the complainants withheld information about the character issue, which was not her fault. [5] The Tribunal has accepted the account given by the complainants and upheld the complaint. The complaint [6] The material allegations in the complaint were set out in the St...

10. TQ v OC [2021] NZDT 1620 (26 July 2021) [pdf, 157 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1620 APPLICANT TQ RESPONDENT OC The Tribunal orders: OC is to pay TQ $1,269 on or before Thursday 12 August 2021. Reasons: 1. TQ was doing up a boat and needed a boat engine. He advertised on Facebook Marketplace and OC responded that he had a motor and that the “actual motor is perfect”. TQ purchased the engine an...