Search Results

1. DU & TU v OE [2024] NZDT 75 (30 January 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...this case changing the law of tort to allow someone who does not own property to claim compensation from another party is not applying a discretion to determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice. TU and DU have to qualify as applicants before s 18(6) can even be considered. They do not. 12. Section 44 likewise does not apply because it can only be considered where no provision is made in the DTA. In this case, there is provision – s 10 sets out the jurisdicti...

2. O Ltd & P Ltd v UU [2023] NZDT 474 (4 September 2023) [pdf, 174 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 474 APPLICANT O Ltd P Ltd RESPONDENT UU The Tribunal orders: The claim and counterclaim are dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 30 January 2022, UU (the buyer) purchased a [vehicle] for $9,500.00 from P Ltd (the seller). About a week later, the buyer returned the car to have some minor defects repaired. The seller rectified mo...

3. IU v ND [2023] NZDT 455 (1 August 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 455 APPLICANT IU RESPONDENT ND The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 5 November 2022, the Respondent leased a show-jumping horse from the Applicant. The Applicant was pregnant and she wished for her horse to continue training and competing. There was no lease payment due, ho...

4. K v OQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 108 (14 September 2022) [pdf, 193 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 108 APPLICANT K RESPONDENT OQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: K’s claim against OQ Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant owns a property near the property at [address] which the respondent manages as a rental agent. On 7 February 2022, there was a party at [address] during which the fence on the applicant’s...

5. [2012] NZEmpC 162 Ong & Ong trading as Pharmacy 72 v Massie [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...discontinuance makes no mention of the matter of costs. [2] Mr Tee, counsel for the defendant, has filed a memorandum seeking costs as of right on account of the discontinuance. In the memorandum the Court was advised that the plaintiffs have now filed an application in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) seeking to have the determination of 10 April 2012, 1 which led to the challenge, reopened. The memorandum states that the defendant’s actual costs incurred on...

6. BK v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 561 (14 November 2023) [pdf, 180 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 561 APPLICANT BK RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The dispute concerns the amount refunded by N Ltd on a sixteen-week nutrition and exercise programme called [programme] for which BK paid $3,800.00. BK started the programme on 17 August 2023, but requested to be released from the programme aft...

7. Burtenshaw [2012] NZWHT Auckland 10 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Road, Hauraki, Auckland ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Mr Burtenshaw and Ms Woods are the owners of a leaky home at 3/15 Norman Road. On 26 September 2011 they filed an application for an assessor’s report with the Department of Building and Housing. The assessor and the chief executive concluded that the dwelling was built by 27 April 1995. The claim accordingly was found to be ineligible because it...

8. LCRO 134/2019 NM v LL (23 October 2020) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...filed by Ms JG on 31 May 2017, Ms LL informed the Tribunal on 6 June 2017 she “accept[ed]” Ms JG had been instructed to act for three of the four claimants, but Mr BT wanted [Ms LL] to continue to act for him. [8] On 7 June 2017, Mr NM requested (by email) Ms LL to “forward all [her] records relating to the claim”. [9] Ms LL’s practice manager responded (by email) to Mr NM on 14 July 2017 explaining that because Ms LL had acted for the claimants since 200[8] she needed...

9. NA v ZT & AM [2022] NZDT 197 (28 October 2022) [pdf, 178 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 197 APPLICANT NA RESPONDENT ZT SECOND RESPONDENT AM THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT NI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NA and the respondents are neighbours. The respondents had complained about the privet trees on NA’s property, as some of their household suffered from allerg...

10. MM v NF Ltd [2022] NZDT 60 (31 May 2022) [pdf, 107 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 60 APPLICANT MM RESPONDENT NF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 13 July 2021, MM booked her wedding reception at the NF Ltd venue for 11 December 2021, for a minimum of 120 guests. On 9 November, the NF Ltd venue advised that owing to Government Covid restrictions in place, the maximum number...