Search Results

1. BE v ZI Ltd [2022] NZDT 265 (17 December 2022) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...the total amount of $18,400.00. Conclusion 19. For these reasons ZI Ltd is to pay BE the sum of $18,400.00 including GST by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 17 December 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 reh...

2. FQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 248 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...satisfied that loss was reasonably foreseeable. I find FQ is entitled to be paid by T Ltd $4,000.00 for this loss. Referee: B Curtis Date: 24 November 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 rehe...

3. MW & NW v SL & TE [2023] NZDT 510 (20 September 2023) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...a 15% discount is appropriate, or in other words MW and NW should be reimbursed for 85% of the expense. 15. SL and TE are to pay MW and NW $2,737.31. Referee: M Wilson Date: 20 September 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. Evans v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2025] NZACC 75 (8 May 2025) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...the position, excused Ms Edmonds from attending and directed the matter would be determined on the papers. Introduction [5] Mr Evans had a dental implant which he says caused gingival overgrowth and resulted in the movement of two teeth. He claims this is a treatment injury. [6] Considering the statutory criteria for a treatment injury, the issue I must determine is whether the dental implant caused the gingival overgrowth and movement. Factual background [7] The parties provi...

5. HN v D Ltd [2025] NZDT 136 (14 February 2025) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...foreseeable losses to HN for which D Ltd is liable? 15. As I have found that D Ltd used reasonable care, this question does not need to be addressed. Referee: S Simmonds Date: 14 February 2025 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...

6. BQ & DQ v I Ltd [2025] NZDT 133 (28 March 2025) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...BQ and DQ purchased a house in August 2023, intending to undertake extensive renovations. They engaged I Ltd to carry out a pre-build inspection to establish the scope and pricing for the renovations. That contract was signed on 7 September 2023, performed, and the agreed price of $6500.00 paid. 2. The renovation contract with I Ltd was signed in November 2023 and a deposit of $15,618.00 was paid – work was to commence on 12 December 2023. 3. However, on 11 December 2023, a fire e...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 88 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 321 KB]

   ...the other. [13] On 14 April 2009, an IEA was signed between Perry’s and Mr Lorigan, backdated so as to be effective from 24 March 2009. As will be discussed later, Mr Lorigan pleaded that this document was signed under duress, and he now informs the Court that he considers it to be void. [14] On 31 May 2009, Perry’s amalgamated under Part 13 of the Companies Act 1993 (the CA) with two other companies in the Sime Darby Group. The evidence is that as a consequence of the am...

8. Bridge v The Real Estate Agents Authority (CAC 409) and Edwards [2018] NZREADT 61 [pdf, 312 KB]

   ...vendors on 6 May 2016. She referred to the hole in the chip heater flue, the lack of hot water in the laundry, and the garage spouting (describing it as “buggered”). She did not refer to the fence. [7] On 9 May, Mr Bridge’s solicitors requested a price reduction of $7,500 from the vendors’ solicitors: … Our client put in an offer on a “sight unseen” basis, relying upon representations by the agent. A building report has identified that the property is not concr...

9. DK & EK v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 359 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...claim that their contract did not include a term limiting the liability. 21. That is because the terms of a contract are set at the beginning of the contract and cannot be introduced part way through the transaction. In my view the contract was formed at the point S Ltd accepted DK and EK’s request to come and inspect the property. 22. Given DK and EK only received the term limiting liability after this (ie once they received the report) it did not form part of their contractual a...

10. Wolverhampton v Shaftesbury LCRO 145 / 2009 (23 June 2010) [pdf, 170 KB]

    ...been posted nor had it been placed in an envelope. The Standards Committee informed the Practitioner accordingly. [4] The Practitioner wrote again to the Standards Committee on 15 June 2009 challenging the truthfulness of the Applicant‟s claim that she did not know how the document came to be in her letter box. He contended that she had found the document among her papers and had herself placed it there. He reiterated his earlier stance that the Applicant had the document a...