Search Results

1. CO v KY & Ors [2024] NZDT 807 (19 August 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...was the first agent to show her clients through the property. 15. KY and G Ltd do not owe CO any money toward the commission. The claim is dismissed. Referee: K O’Shea Date: 19 August 2024 Page 3 of 3 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...

2. GB v B Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 604 (24 May 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...cannot be awarded. Conclusion 11. For these reasons PD and B Ltd are, jointly and severally, to pay GB the sum of $6,637.96 by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 24 May 2024 Page 3 of 3 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...

3. Forms & fees

   Make a claim Forms Amount sought Fee Apply online Disputes Tribunal claim form [PDF, 354 KB] Guide to filing a claim form can be found under how to make a claim If the total amount sought under the claim is less than $2000 $61 If the total amount sought under the claim is $2000 or more but less than $5000 $121 If the total amount sought under the claim is between $5000 and $30,000 $243 Acknowledgement from applicant's insurer Free Back to top Rehearings & appeals For...

   Located in:

   1. Disputes Tribunal

4. FL v C Ltd [2023] NZDT 248 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 248 APPLICANT FL RESPONDENT C Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 8 October 2021, FL contracted C Ltd to make 6 bridesmaid dresses to a single design for $250.00 plus GST each. The bridesmaids each paid for their own dress. 2. The contract required each bridesmaid to provide her me...

5. LCRO 2/2018 MC v TL (17 June 2020) [pdf, 304 KB]

   ...his legal costs incurred in his application to set aside the paternity order. Complaint [9] Mr MC lodged a complaint with the Lawyers Complaints Service on 9 June 2017. (1) Terms of engagement – rules 3.4, 3.5 [10] He claimed despite requesting Mr TL on three occasions to sign the terms of engagement, Mr TL told him [Mr TL’s] signature was “not a requirement” of the terms of engagement. 1 Family Court order (25 No...

6. UL v PT [2022] NZDT 276 (23 December 2022) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...varied, in law or equity, by UL’s proposal. 4. I have had regard to PT’s advice, from CAB, that silence (if indeed she had not actively agreed) constituted consent. It can sometimes be the case that terms sent, but not actively assented to, can form acceptance, and thus contractual responsibility, where a person acts in reliance of that apparent assent. However, in this case, PT did not take any action, or perform any service, on the strength of what had been sent. 5. For the...

7. XH v ND [2024] NZDT 300 (20 May 2024) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...law of contract apply to this dispute. A contract is an agreement that the parties intend to be legally bound by. It involves an exchange of promises and becomes binding when the parties agree on clear and certain terms. The terms of a contract are formed at the beginning, not at the end. A contract can be in writing, oral or a mixture of both. Variations to agreements can be made in the same manner. Subsequent actions, of the parties, can show that parties confirm their intention to be bo...

8. Jones v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZACA 02 [pdf, 250 KB]

   ...date (Corporation’s memorandum 24 January 1996). Again, I do not know whether the decision is missing, but I have not seen it. The certificate is missing. I do not know if any review was sought. [24] On an unknown date, Mr Jones once more requested ERC, but was now claiming ERC backdated to the date of the accident on 5 January 1988. The claim document is not available. This is the claim which is the subject of the current appeal. 6 [25] On 8 March 1993, Dr B...

9. OJ v KH [2020] NZDT 1534 (4 May 2020) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1534 APPLICANT OJ RESPONDENT KH The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. All evidence in this proceeding is suppressed unless it is published in anonymized form and not in association with other information that would be likely to personally identify the parties. Reasons: 1. OJ is the owner and operator of EB Escort Agency in [location]. On 2 July 2018, KH joined the agency as one of its es...

10. Waitangi Tribunal - issue 61 of Te Manutukutuku [pdf, 1.1 MB]

    ...under a quarter of the original confiscated lands. It located its blocks arbitrarily and without the consent of those Mäori affected. The hapu of Ngäti Ranginui, in particular, were affected by the unfair way in which land was returned. The form of title used for the return was individualised European tenure. Mäori customary title was thus abolished without the consent of owners. Copies of the Tauranga Raupatu Report at the release in 2004. Professor Keith Sorrenson, histo...