Search Results

1. King & Bailey [2011] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...Lynfield. Despite accepting that the house is a leaky home, the Chief Executive of the Department of Building and Housing has concluded that the claim is not an eligible claim because the house was built more than ten years before the claim was filed. The claimants have applied for reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). The Issues [2] The key issues to be determined in this cas...

2. Davis - Tapuwae 1B and 4 Incorporation (2005) 102 Whangārei MB 206 (102 WH 206) [pdf, 363 KB]

   ...Special General Meeting. (See 94 WH 239-240) In Chambers, Judge Spencer invoked section 37/93 to make orders under: 1. Rule 38(3)/94 to reinstate the application he had previously dismissed in April 2000. He appears to have treated the new material filed as an extension of the issues that should have been addressed by the Committee of Management, given his directions at 91 KH 67-70; 2. Section 19i93 by way of temporary injunction to stop the sale of the land and business of the...

3. Badillo-Lopez v Uber New Zealand (Strike-Out Application) [2019] NZHRRT 18 [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...New Zealand. On 10 November 2016, a Certificate of Investigation was issued which records that the OPC investigated Mr Badillo-Lopez’s complaint under Principle 6 and found a breach of that Principle. [7] On 15 February 2017, Mr Badillo-Lopez filed a claim in the Tribunal against Uber New Zealand. The claim alleged that Uber New Zealand had breached Principles 1, 6, 8 and 11. With respect to Principle 11, the claim alleged that Uber New Zealand had disclosed and wrongly shared Mr...

4. Holmes [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...accepting that the house is a leaky home, both the assessor and the chief executive of the Department of Building and Housing have concluded that the claim is not an eligible claim because the house was built more than ten years before the claim was filed. The claimants have applied for reconsideration of the chief executive’s decision under section 49 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 (the Act). The Issues [2] The key issues to be determined in this...

5. Hawke's Bay Lawyers Standards Committee v Mr E [2016] NZLCDT 30 [pdf, 30 KB]

   ...near the end of the lawyer/client relationship, when communication between them was not at its best. The first charge alleged Mr E had misled the Court about the state of his instructions. The second, alleged that when sending the client’s file to another lawyer, the practitioner omitted two items. Charge 2 – missing items [3] The second charge was one of straightforward credibility assessment. Since we accepted Mr E’s evidence that he had sent everything he had held by w...

6. Karena v Te Koau A Ahu Whenua Trust [2018] Māori Appellate Court MB 154 (2018 APPEAL 154) [pdf, 337 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] On 9 December 2016, Judge Harvey dismissed this Appellant’s application for removal of trustees and a review of the trust. The Appellant says he received a copy of that judgment on 21 or 22 December 2016. [2] On 27 June 2017, he filed an application for a rehearing under section 43 of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993. The relevant parts of Section 43 read: Rehearings (1) Subject to subsection (2), on an application made in accordance with the rules of cour...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 110 Fleming v Attorney-General [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...(Taikura Trust) to proceedings currently before the Employment Relations Authority. The proceedings have apparently been stayed pending the outcome of proceedings in Fleming v Attorney-General.1 [2] Access is sought to the “court record and court file for [the proceedings], including: court judgments and minutes, applications, pleadings, transcripts, evidence, and any further documents which are filed in relation to these proceedings.” Access is said to be sought on the basi...

8. M1 Ltd v M2 Ltd & FS [2023] NZDT 739 (15 December 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 739 APPLICANT M1 Ltd RESPONDENT M2 Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT FS The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons Introduction 1. M1 Ltd have filed a claim (the current claim) for $30,000.00 in relation to a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) that was not provided prior to the settlement of a property transaction for the M Lodge (the Lodge), between DQ and KQ (the Qs) as trustees...

9. UN & QN v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 443 (9 September 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...left, stayed at a motel and then came back the following morning expecting a waterfront site to be available but there wasn’t. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. UN and QN left again and went and spent their holiday elsewhere. UN and QN filed this claim on 7 March 2023 for $3,284.00 for their petrol expense of $129.00, alternate accommodation expense of $155.00 and $3,000.00 for “expectation damages, mental distress, disappointment and loss of amenity value”. 8. Holid...

10. QG v BE [2024] NZDT 96 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

    ...14. For completeness I record that BE questioned during the hearing on 10 August 2023 whether QG was outside the limitation period to bring this claim. I advised her that section 11 of the Limitation Act 2010 provides a defence to a claim if it is filed at least six years after the date of the incident. However I did not raise this as an issue as the document trail clearly shows that the incident was 14 June 2016 at 11:30pm, and QG filed his claim on 14 June 2022 during working hours. QG h...