Search Results

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

   ...respondents moved his aircraft some time in the first half of 2021, however he did not raise the issue of damage with them until December 2021 when he sent them a letter asking for compensation of $9000. As he did not receive a reply to his letter, NI claimed in the Disputes Tribunal on 4 March 2022 for compensation for the costs of repairs. Repair costs have now increased to $15,452.29. 5. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows: i. Did the respondents damage the pl...

2. MT v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 740 (29 October 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...it allows customers to set up an account, although in this instance, P Ltd did not even provide that service to MT. It provided the service to a person pretending to be MT. 10. It is appropriate to take a broad and purposive approach to the application of the CGA, which is intended to be consumer protection legislation. Taking that broad approach I accept, for the purpose of this analysis, that P Ltd owed MT (indirectly) a duty of reasonable care and skill. 11. MT’s argument...

3. [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...

4. [2015] NZEmpC 216 Roy v Tamaki College Board of Trustees no 3 interlocutory [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 216 [3 December 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 216 ARC 92/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to inspect the court file BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROY Plaintiff AND TAMAKI COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Defendant Hearing: By written application and memoranda filed on 25 November...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 18 Severinsen & Anor v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 14 KB]

   ...THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN PAUL SEVERINSEN, JIM PULLINS, RICHARD STEELE, ROSS WAKELING, KERRY BOURKE, BARRY HINGA, LEE KARAMAINA, ERIC HULENA, PAUL MASTERS and JASON RANGI Applicants AND AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: (on the papers by application dated 30 January 2015) Appearances: J Unsworth, counsel for the applicants R Webster, counsel for the respondent Judgm...

6. EW v KR & K Ltd [2024] NZDT 319 (29 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 319 APPLICANT EW RESPONDENT KR SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim against KR is dismissed. K Ltd is to pay $588.33 to EW by 17 May 2024. Reasons 1. The claim against KR is dismissed because EW did not contract with him. Was the Inverter of acceptable quality? 2. EW purchased a 4000W-24v...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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...

10. 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...