Search Results

1. BD v DS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1504 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...does not necessarily mean they had something to hide. There could be other reasons. Conclusion 25. For the reasons above, DS’s claim is dismissed. Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 14 October 2020 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...

2. CT & ID v S Ltd [2022] NZDT 7 (2 March 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 7 APPLICANT CT APPLICANT ID RESPONDENT S Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 11 March 2021 CT and ID (the applicants) engaged S Limited (SL) to perform a pre- purchase inspection report on [address] (the property). 2. Some months after purchasing the property, the applicants became aware of issues with the windows and water ingress. 3. The applicants are claiming $9,328.90, being...

3. EC v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 186 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...provide to their customers. They said however that every issue that EC encountered was dealt with and resolved by U Ltd, and that overall, even taken together, they considered that the service provided was reasonable. 13. I have taken all of the information provided by both parties into account and I am unable to make a finding that U Ltd’s service was not provided with reasonable care and skill in this case. 14. I can see that there were a number of issues that EC encountered in...

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. [2010] NZEmpC 79 Silver Fern Farms Ltd v North [pdf, 50 KB]

    ...position as here. Mr Mitchell’s argument would advance the case for employees a step further. Wyatt says that not only must there be an awareness of the act or omission but the 90 day period does not begin to run until the employee considers (forms a “reasonable belief”) that the employer’s action was unjustifiable. Mr Mitchell’s argument goes one step further, however, and would have three necessary constituents: the awareness or appreciation of the act or omission, th...