Search Results

1. Protection Order Applications flow chart December 2023 [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...(4,464 applications, 96%) Respondent doesn’t get a chance to respond to the application until after a temporary Protection Order is considered Most Protection Order applications are granted This flowchart shows how Protection Order applications filed in 2023 progress through the Protection Order process. Due to the time the process takes, some applications were still active (as at 28 February 2024), but with time these will have final outcomes. Did they require protection urgently?...

2. EX v HC [2023] NZDT 631 (29 November 2023) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...counter-offer for the car on the basis of the issues found during the service then told HC she no longer wanted to complete the purchase of the car and asked for her deposit to be returned. EX claims $1,000.00 from HC. 2. After the first hearing HC filed a statement that he wanted to claim $1,080.00 from EX, less the amount paid by way of deposit. HC did not file a counterclaim so I was not able to consider this, although I was able to consider the evidence HC filed as this was relev...

3. [2023] NZEmpC 84 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...of evidence, the notes of evidence, the bundles of documents and the exhibits contain a significant amount of personal and highly sensitive information about individuals, including information which is contested. While briefs of evidence were filed, some witnesses made corrections and amendments to their written briefs at hearing – the point being that the written briefs filed in advance of the hearing may not accurately reflect the evidence given in Court. The material also inc...

4. Protection-Order-applications-flowchart_JUN2023_v1.0.pdf [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...(4,536 applications, 96%) Respondent doesn’t get a chance to respond to the application until after a temporary Protection Order is considered Most Protection Order applications are granted This flowchart shows how Protection Order applications filed in 2022/2023 progress through the Protection Order process. Due to the time the process takes, some applications were still active (as at 25 August 2023), but with time these will have final outcomes. Did they require protection urgent...

5. ST v F Ltd NS [2023] NZDT 563 (6 November 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...installed at his home by his builder NS. He claims that within two months the vanity was delaminating at the side. Both NS and F Ltd have acknowledged there is a problem, but neither of them has accepted responsibility for the problem. 2. ST has filed a claim against F Ltd and NS for $2,968.00 for the cost of purchasing and installing a replacement vanity. 3. NS did not attend the hearing, but his written response to the claim has been taken into consideration. The absence of a party d...

6. KD v QM [2023] NZDT 507 (9 October 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 507 APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT QM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 18 January 2022, KD filed a claim against U Ltd and B Ltd for alleged defective work B Ltd performed when building a conservatory for KD’s father in 2007. During the course of the hearings on the claim, U Ltd was struck out as a party. An order was made on 8 June

7. [2023] NZEmpC 129 Dhiman v Naanak Ltd [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...liq) [2022] NZERA 510 (Member Beck). [2] In a subsequent cost determination, issued on 14 November 2022, the Authority ordered Mr Mann to pay Mr Dhiman the sum of $5,375 as a contribution to his costs and to reimburse him the Authority filing fee of $71.56.2 [3] As no payment was made, Mr Dhiman then applied for and obtained compliance orders in the Authority under s 137 of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) requiring Mr Mann to pay the sums awarded, together wit...

8. SU v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 266 (25 May 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...payment of a debt other than interest. The statutory interest on $80 is too trivial to be worth calculating. The rule regarding damages for late payment may seem harsh, especially since an applicant in the Disputes Tribunal cannot recover the Tribunal filing fee or other costs,3 but F Ltd finds itself in the same position as other creditors in this regard. It has avoided the filing fee anyway since SU filed the claim. 13. For these reasons, I conclude that the sum payable by SU to F Ltd...

9. IACDT annual report 2022 [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...to the District Court. A party to a complaint can appeal a sanctions decision or a decision to cancel or suspend an adviser’s licence or a decision to reject an appeal against the Registrar’s cancellation of a licence.12 An appeal must be filed within 20 working days of notice of the Tribunal’s decision, unless further time is allowed by the District Court. A liability or substantive decision cannot be appealed, but it could be the subject of judicial review in the High Cou...

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

    ...the $250 owing to [the panel beater]”. A couple of weeks later, the buyer purported to reject the car and demanded a refund. The seller declined a refund and added, “you also have a storage bill to pay to release the vehicle”. 3. The buyer filed a claim in the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) seeking to reject the car due to the seller’s refusal to pay the panel beater for the boot damage. However, the MVDT found that there was no agreement for the seller to pay the bill, a...