Search Results

1. 2021-07-09 ORC - MOC- re PHC [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...conference. The identified provisions comprise all of the primary sector provisions of PC8. 3 In paragraph [26](b) of Court’s directions dated 21 April 2021, any party proposing amendments to the timetable and/or seeking other directions, is to file a memorandum by 3pm on Friday 9 July. 4 The purpose of this memorandum is to update the Court and parties on the outcomes of mediation; and to seek alternative directions in relation to the evidence exchange timetable in advance o...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 230 Te Whatu Ora – Health New Zealand v CultureSafe New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...Court” and that the audio recordings will provide evidence of that process. [3] Counsel for the plaintiff, Mr Beech, does not consent to, nor oppose, the application. No submissions were advanced on behalf of the plaintiff. [4] Mr Halse filed an email stating that he supports the request, and also seeks a copy of the audio recordings of the two hearings in question. He also says that he proposes to file, in due course, an application to strike out the current proceeding. [5]...

3. [2022] NZEnvC 015 Director General of Conservation v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...Directions were made on Tuesday 30 November 2021 after Mr Albert 2 Burgoyne had made an application to substitute Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngati Kuri Research Unit for himself ass 274 party. [3] Furthermore, the balance of parties have also filed a memorandum for a timetable for hearing to which Mr Burgoyne is not a signatory. Application for substitution [4] The status of Mr Burgoyne and the Te Taumata Kaumatua o Ngati Kuri Research Unit has been a subject of discussion in the...

4. HH v BJ Ltd [2024] NZDT 200 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 133 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 200 APPLICANT HH RESPONDENT BJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. HH filed an insurance claim for his damaged [car]. After an investigation, BJ Ltd declined the claim and cancelled HH’s insurance policy. 2. HH claims $15,000.00 toward the cost of repairing the car and a refund of $558.27 in to

5. JT v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 227 (24 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...weeks. At the time of filing the claim, JT had paid Q Ltd $95.00 and had requests for payment from Q Ltd for $325.00. JT seeks an order that she is not liable to Q Ltd for $325.00. 3. Q Ltd did not appear at the hearing, nor were there any submissions filed in response to the claim. Q Ltd has not been in contact with the Tribunal. I called Q Ltd. At first, I got voicemail messages. On one occasion K answered the call. I informed K who I was, and I was calling from the Disputes Tribunal. A...

6. X Ltd v GN [2023] NZDT 446 (4 September 2023) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...5. The Respondent failed to pay the invoice by the due date and X Ltd added penalty interest of 18% per month. 6. The Respondent paid $50.00 on 30 June 2023, leaving a balance due of $7.50. X Ltd continued to add penalty interest. 7. X Ltd filed this claim for $1,000.00 on 11 July 2023, seeking the unpaid balance of the invoice and interest of $50.50 and costs of $949.50. 8. The Fair Trading Act 1986 requires that all terms and conditions of a contract must be made known to the...

7. IU Ltd v NO [2023] NZDT 409 (26 July 2023) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 8. As [Collection Agency 1] had been unsuccessful, the Applicant referred the debt to another [Collection Agency 2], in June 2022, which incurred an additional $5.00 lodging fee, bringing the claim to $4,016.55. The Applicant filed this claim for that amount on 8 May 2023. 9. The Respondent did not raise a dispute with the invoices until 5 July 2022 to [Collection Agency 2] citing the fact that he had not signed the engagement letter and that he sh...

8. DT v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 330 (31 July 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...statute barred? 3. I find that the claim is statute barred because the work done by X Ltd was building work in terms of the Building Act 2004 and so the claim is out of time because the building work happened more than 10 years before the claim was filed. 4. S. 393(2) of the Building Act 2004 states that no relief may be granted in respect of civil proceedings relating to building work if those proceedings are brought against a person after 10 years or more from the date of the act...

9. TG v ZT [2024] NZDT 826 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...Application for Rehearing Out of Time. PLEASE NOTE: A rehearing will not be granted just because you disagree with the decision. Please also note that you cannot appeal a rehearing outcome, only the original decision itself. As a result, any appeal filed at the conclusion of the rehearing process would be out of time, involves a further application for leave to appeal and is at risk of not being accepted. If you wish to reserve a right of appeal you may therefore wish to file an appea...

10. NU & IO v BM & ME [2024] NZDT 770 (25 November 2024) [pdf, 204 KB]

    ...Tribunal has no jurisdiction over this dispute. There is no power in the Disputes Tribunal Act CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 1988 to transfer a claim to the Tenancy Tribunal, so the claim and counterclaim must be struck out. The parties may file their claims in the Tenancy Tribunal. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 25 November 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented...