Search Results

1. Davis v Hussey & Ors (Strike Out) [2025] NZHRRT 28 [pdf, 194 KB]

   1 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM1 1 This decision is to be cited as Davis v Hussey & Ors (Strike Out) [2025] NZHRRT 28. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2025] NZHRRT 28 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA Reference No. HRRT 031/2023 UNDER THE PRIVACY ACT 2020 BETWEEN ARTEMIS INDIGO DELILAH DAVIS PLAINTIFF AND SARAH LESS HUSSEY FIRST DEFENDANT AND BATH STREET TAP ROOM LIMITED SECOND DEFENDANT AT WELLINGTON BEFORE: J Foster, Deputy Chairp

2. BM v X Ltd [2020] NZDT 1583 (23 June 2020) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...by email. 6. In the hearing, I gave BM a copy of X Ltd.’s 31 March 2021 email, a copy of s 10 of the Disputes Tribunal Act and a copy of my 13 January 2021 order. I gave BM an opportunity to adjourn the hearing and seek advice about that information. He declined that opportunity. Therefore, I am making this decision on the information presented in the hearings to date. 7. The issue to determine is whether the Disputes Tribunal has the jurisdiction to hear this claim. Doe...

3. MD v D Ltd [2019] NZDT 1513 (12 August 2019) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...claim, MD emailed the Tribunal to advise that a payment of $2,500.00 had been received from DL that morning reducing the amount claimed to $5,343.00 plus interest. [3] I have to decide: (a) who the parties to the contract were; (b) whether DL performed its obligations under its contract with MD; (c) if MD was entitled to cancel the contract; and (d) whether DL is liable to pay the whole or any part of the amount claimed. [4] The applicable law is the law of contract and the Co...

4. HK v F Ltd [2024] NZDT 698 (7 November 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...component and it would be reasonable to expect there would be several other components connecting to that part. The claim under the manufacturer’s warranty must therefore fail. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 8. HK also stated the warranty information was misleading. However I find that claim has not been proven. HK agreed the warranty was stated to be on the inverter motor only. Although HK thought this related to the inner workings of the machine, he did not seek clarity...

5. X Ltd v II [2021] NZDT 1539 (14 May 2021) [pdf, 169 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 8 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1539 APPLICANT X Limited (formerly Q Limited) RESPONDENT II SECOND RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: II and BI are liable to pay $7,536.78 to X Limited in respect of the claim. X Limited is liable to pay $4,492.88 to II and BI in respect of the counter claim. After the amount of $4,492.88 payable by X Limited

6. TG v E Ltd [2024] NZDT 289 (10 May 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...October 2021 for substantial renovations to the applicant’s home. The contract was terminated by the applicant in July 2022 before the works were completed. TG’s written submissions provide full detail of her dissatisfaction with E Ltd’s performance. The claim 5. Generally, TG says that a project cost blowout occurred and was caused by E Ltd and its lack of financial transparency. Due to that she has refused to pay E Ltd’s two final invoices ($24,890.65) and seeks a decl...

7. EI & MQ v M Ltd [2024] NZDT 485 (19 June 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...February 2024, agreed to wait a further six weeks for the delivery of a replacement bed package based on M Ltd advising that was how long it would take. After 10 weeks, MQ and EI contacted M Ltd inquiring as to where the bed package was. They were informed it was on a container and there was no delivery date provided. In mid-April MQ and EI contacted M Ltd and advised if they could not provide a delivery date then they wanted a refund. M Ltd at first asked for an extension to 31 May 2024 t...

8. M Ltd v AAI [2023] NZDT 578 (11 August 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 578 APPLICANT M Ltd RESPONDENT AAI The Tribunal orders: AAI is to pay the sum of $8,000.00 to M Ltd on or before Monday 28 August 2023. Reasons: 1. In August 2021, AAI submitted a Consignment Quote Request form to M Ltd for a [designer purse]. The form stated, “We only sell authentic items.” He shipped the purse to M Ltd in [Country]. M Ltd received the purse in September 2021, and an artificial intelligence-enabled authenticatio...

9. NI v FI & MI & GI [2023] NZDT 592 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...respondents damaged the aircraft when moving it, and as they are not responsible for any deterioration after it was delivered to NI’s shed, the claim is dismissed. Referee: K Edwards Date: 13 October 2023 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...

10. TQ IQ v ZC [2021] NZDT 1704 (10 December 2021) [pdf, 210 KB]

    ...payable in additional to actual additional expenses. 13. Based on the findings above, ZC is to pay $1173.00 + $361.00 + $100.00 to TQ and IQ, being $1634.00. Referee Perfect Date: 10 December 2021 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 r...