Search Results

1. [2022] NZIACDT 12 - LS v Murthy (27 May 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Murthy in May 2020. They had a number of meetings to discuss his entitlement to a work visa and residence under the skilled migrant category. A written service agreement was signed by the complainant and Ms Murthy on 25 May 2020. [7] Ms Murthy filed an application with the New Zealand Qualifications Authority on 20 August 2020 to assess the complainant’s qualifications. She did not disclose to the complainant that the application had been filed. [8] By then the complainan...

2. IN v SU [2021] NZDT 1652 (12 July 2021) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...of the Disputes Tribunal hearing there is no jurisdiction for the District Court to reach a finding different to that of the Referee. A Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have...

3. AI YK v LS [2021] NZDT 1709 (7 December 2021) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...of the Disputes Tribunal hearing there is no jurisdiction for the District Court to reach a finding different to that of the Referee. A Notice of Appeal may be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have...

4. XK v Q Ltd & KT [2023] NZDT 720 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...available for other bookings for [Band 1], I allow the full refund of $690. Is XK entitled to $2000 compensation for pain and suffering relating to her daughter? 20. XK’s daughter is not a party to the contract as set out by XK or to the claim filed. This is a bar to having an order made for her daughter, if the Tribunal had jurisdiction to allow costs for pain and suffering. Reasonably foreseeable losses, which may include costs can be considered for a breach of guarantee unti...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 49 Chantama v McKerchar Lamb Limited [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...usual.10 Analysis [13] The question in this case is whether Mr McKerchar’s presence may enable the Court to more effectually dispose of the matter before it according to the substantial merits and equities of the case. [14] Mr Chantama filed an affidavit in support of his application. In his affidavit, Mr Chantama says that he and Mr McKerchar worked closely together during his employment; setting up and running MLL’s restaurant business in which he was to work as a che...

6. UB v NC [2023] NZDT 628 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...contractor to trim the trees back and paid $1,500.00. On 15 May 2023, UB handed a letter to NC advising her of the work and asking her to reimburse her the $1,500.00. The parties have been unable to reach a resolution to this issue and a claim was filed in the Tribunal. 2. At the first hearing, it was determined that the claims regarding the trimming and/or removal of trees/plants were outside of the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. UB stated that she intended to take a claim to the Di...

7. LF & AS v NJ [2023] NZDT 36 (10 February 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...entitled to the costs for expenses incurred with moving out and finding alternative accommodation. That is because I have found NJ was entitled to give notice and the period of notice given was reasonable. 16. AS and LF also claimed the Tribunal filing fee and costs associated with the proceedings. However, the Tribunal has limited ability to make an award of costs and none can be awarded in the circumstances of this case. 17. AS and LF paid a bond of $300. It is agreed by AS (w...

8. XD v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 100 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...repairs would be $278.00 (two parts at $99.00 each and $80.00 tech time) plus postage. D Ltd offered to cover the cost of one of the parts, which would have reduced that price by $99.00. 24. This offer was not acceptable to XD, and so eventually she filed this claim, which was sent to Q Ltd at its registered office. 25. The CGA requires that if a problem is capable of being fixed, a consumer must give the supplier an opportunity to remedy it. In this case XD’s contact about a pos...

9. SX v Q Ltd & TX [2024] NZDT 112 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TX was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing due to evidence of repeated instances of misleading and...

10. BN & KN as trustees for the N Trust v I Ltd [2024] NZDT 188 (8 February 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...is inadequate to prove their claim. The claim is therefore dismissed. [15] The applicants acknowledge that they owe, for a reason unrelated to their claim, $2,827,56 to I Ltd. They had allowed for this sum as a set-off in the claim that they filed. As their obligation to pay it is not disputed, they must pay that sum to I Ltd. Referee: C Hawes Date: 8 February 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing...