Search Results

1. MX v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 251 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...cost. MX has not accepted this offer as she claims she has lost faith. 11. The Consumer Guarantees Act contains rights and obligations for both parties. MX’s obligation was to give Dr T an opportunity to carry out remedial work. As MX has not permitted Dr T to do that work, I find she is not entitled to recover costs of alternative treatment or obtain a refund as requested. Did MX receive the service for which she paid? Does this entitle MX to a full refund? 12. MX believes...

2. UH v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 45 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...improperly levied by D Ltd in the circumstances. 13. In his claim UH seeks recovery of the credit card charge. My power to order compensation is therefore limited to the amount sought in the claim. For the avoidance of doubt however, if I were permitted to do so, I would also have added a refund of a significant part of the CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 accommodation fees he paid for that evening as well. 14. During the hearing FA did come around, to some degree, to th...

3. Apostolakis No. 2 (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2017] NZHRRT 33 [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...279 at [19], the purpose of Part 8 of the Privacy Act is to ensure that in the first instance a complaint about an interference with the privacy of an individual must be dealt with by the Privacy Commissioner. Proceedings before the Tribunal are permitted by s 82 only where an investigation has been conducted under Part 8 or where conciliation (under s 74) has not resulted in settlement. For the complaint resolution process to work a person in respect of whom a complaint is made and an...

4. HE v QZ [2023] NZDT 372 (18 January 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...3. The parties entered into a written contract in 2018. The essential terms of the contract were that: a. The price of the work (carpentry labour only) was $50,000. b. The work would be completed by the first week of October 2018, weather permitting. 4. HE made several payments to QZ. At the hearings the parties disagreed about the total amount that HE paid. 5. QZ carried out building work in 2018. He left the site in 2019. At the time that he left, the job was not comp...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 111 Citadel Capital Ltd v Miles [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...she is not entitled to costs.”9 [13] In the present case, Mr Miles was represented, so he was not a litigant in person. He was not represented by a lawyer with a current practising certificate, but the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) permits non-lawyers to act as lay representatives in the Court.10 The longstanding practice of this Court has been to allow costs for lay representatives.11 This is reflected by the Court’s Guideline Scale, which, in contrast to the High...

6. [2016] NZSSAA 68 (11 July 2016) [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...good faith; (d) the beneficiary changed his position believing he was entitled to receive the money and would not have to repay it; and (e) it would be inequitable in all the circumstances, including the debtor’s financial circumstances, to permit recovery. [19] Pursuant to s 86(9B) of the Act, the term “error” means: (a) the provision of incorrect information by an officer of the Ministry; 5 (b) an erroneous act or omission occurring during an investigation of be...

7. KI v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 584 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...wall? Did the defective retaining wall need a Building Consent? Did X Ltd breach the terms of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase? 4. Clause 7.2(5)(a) of the Agreement for Sale and Purchase states the vendor warrants that they have obtained any permits and building consents required by law for any work that has been done on the property. 5. Following the failure of the wall, KI obtained a report from an engineer, NP, at B Ltd. The report states the wall is not shown on the buil...

8. FD v VG LCRO 127 / 2010 (2 September 2011) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...with the Applicant and in the circumstances the hearing took place without his attendance. This is obviously regrettable. However, the LCRO is obliged to conduct a review with as little formality and technicality, and as much expedition as is permitted by a proper consideration of the review and the rules of natural justice (Section 200). [18] It was my view that that the nature of the complaint was sufficiently clearly set out for me to proceed to review the matter in the absence...

9. FT v MU & T Ltd & U Ltd [2023] NZDT 470 [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...costs. I do not award these amounts as it was not imperative for him to travel to NZ to resolve the dispute. It could have been addressed from [country 1] with the assistance of his NZ residing son (who has been substantially assisting him and was also permitted to represent him in these Tribunal hearings). 23. As to any hire costs in [country 1] such would not be awarded as the customs issue would still have been left to be resolved and I am not satisfied he needed a car there as he...

10. BORA 2002 Income Tax Bill [pdf, 114 KB]

    ...Attorney-General Table of Discriminatory Clauses Practical Effect Who is Disadvantaged? Clause De Facto Partners (Same or opposite-sex) CB 19(1)(b) – Farmland exclusion: land division; CB 20(1) – Farmland exclusion: land affected by changes in permitted use; and CW 24(b) – Maintenance payments. Tax Exemption Married Persons CD 5(1)(a)(iii) – When is a transfer caused by a shareholding relationship. De Facto Partners (Same or opposite-sex) CF 1(2) - Benefits, pensions, compensati...