Search Results

1. [2020] NZEnvC 007 CEP Services Matauwhi Limited v Northland Regional Council [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...in this substantive hearing that they were a participant even if they did not have status at that time. As she properly points out, at the time they 4 became involved in the discussions, they should have considered whether they should have filed a notice2 . That might be said in a perfect world, however parties are dealing in this case with a whole series of different topics and provisions which are coming up on regular intervals with a mediator, spending considerable time with pa...

2. [2022] NZEmpC 27 Courage v Attorney-General [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS (Application for permanent non-publication orders) [1] This matter is set down for a five-day hearing commencing next week, on 21 February 2022. On 14 February 2022 counsel for the second, third and fourth defendants filed an application for permanent non-publication orders. The orders sought are extensive, covering identified parts of various witnesses’ proposed evidence and (in some cases) the entirety of that evidence. The application has been opp...

3. BN v AW [2020] NZDT 1480 (8 October 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...$1,812.39 to the costs of replacing the fence. On 1 July 2020, AW issued a cross notice disputing any contribution on the basis that the fence had been removed before the fencing notice was issued, and the pre-existing fence had been adequate. 4. BN filed a claim to have the matter determined by the Disputes Tribunal. 5. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Was the old fence “adequate”? (b) If not, how much can be claimed as a contribution to the replacement fence? Was the e...

4. ID v SD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1509 (4 February 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...School 1 is not liable in damages to ID since it had no direct contractual relationship with him. However, I explained to the parties that School 1 could potentially be liable to SD Ltd for damages. Rather than taking an adjournment so that SD Ltd could file a claim against School 1, SD Ltd and School 1 asked me to record that they had agreed between themselves that they would each pay fifty per cent of any damages that SD Ltd is ordered to pay to ID. Referee: E Paton-Simpson...

5. BS and NE v RB Ltd [2017] NZDT 1524 (26 April 2017) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...did not attend the hearing. 3. Before the hearing commenced, BS, at that time the only applicant, indicated that NE should also be an applicant because the purchase had been a joint purchase. He indicated that he had been unclear at the time he filed the claim whether this was permitted. I confirmed that it was permitted and I have therefore added NE as an applicant today at the hearing. 4. The issues to be determined were as follows: a. Were there any misrepresentations abou...

6. 2021-07-30 ORC - Legal submissions - reply on pORPS [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...8140 DX WX11179 Tel +64 3 379 7622 Fax +64 379 2467 Solicitor: P A C Maw / M A Mehlhopt (philip.maw@wynnwilliams.co.nz / michelle.mehlhopt@wynnwilliams.co.nz) 1 MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT: 1 These reply legal submissions are filed on behalf of the Otago Regional Council (ORC or Council) in response to the direction of the Court for the Council to file legal submissions in reply to the submissions of interested parties on the proposed Otago Regional Policy Statem...

7. READT annual report 2022 [pdf, 274 KB]

   ...oral hearing.19 A penalty order made by the Tribunal may be enforced as if it was an order of the District Court.20 Any person affected by a decision of the Tribunal may appeal to the High Court against the decision.21 An appeal must be filed within 20 working days after the day on which notice of the relevant decision is given, though the Court may accept a late appeal no later than 60 working days after such notice.22 Publication of Tribunal Decisions The Tribunal has a...

8. Pocock - Allotment 246D1 Waimana Parish (2020) 231 Waiariki MB 273 (231 WAR 273) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...date 13 March 2020 TE WHAKATAUNGA Ā KAIWHAKAWĀ C T COXHEAD Judgment of Judge C T Coxhead 231 Waiariki MB 274 Hei timatanga korero - Introduction [1] This decision concerns an application filed by Karen Winirangi Pocock for confirmation of alienation by way of sale. [2] On 5 December 2019, I provided a reserved decision regarding this application.1 I do not intend to repeat the background to this matter which is detailed in...

9. MH v NB Ltd [2022] NZDT 171 (4 October 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...totalled $153.74. I have allowed $100.00 for these fares as reasonable consequential losses. MH would, of course, have incurred running costs and depreciation if she had been using her own car instead. [17] I have not allowed the cost of MH’s filing fee, as this is not provided for in the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Result [17] The result is that NB Ltd must pay MH $1,028.85. Referee: C Hawes Date: 4 October 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information f...

10. DM & IW v HD [2022] NZDT 44 (2 May 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

    ...dealt with IW during the construction. When the deck was finished, DM identified a number of problems with the work. He obtained a report from another building specialist. HD did not complete the repairs that appeared to be required. DM and IW filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim for breach of the guarantee that services are to be provided with reasonable care and skill, as set out in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993. The Applicants estimated that the repair...