Search Results

1. UX v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 105 (16 March 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...me. 23. The machine has broken down on numerous occasions, sometimes requiring it to be collected from elsewhere on the farm. It has been unable to be used for around 60% of the time UX has owned (that is the time up until October 2022 when UX filed his Tribunal claim) and has not been able to be used since October 2022. UX has purchased another second hand machine to use on the farm in place of the UTV. Taking into account the loss of use of the vehicle, the inconvenience and the cost...

2. SG & LN v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 715 (12 December 2023) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...confirmed their design requirements and paid for the headstone that M Ltd told them a glass plaque could not be used in a [city] cemetery. This notification came in an email from M Ltd on 24 November 2023. This contrasts with other evidence on the file that shows that at least 9 months earlier, within a March 2022 email, M Ltd noted they would need to check with the appropriate local authority regarding any local cemetery requirements or prohibitions in terms of design decisions. The em...

3. S Ltd v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 405 (8 November 2023) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...did include additional flashings and sealing around the windows. The applicant concluded that $14,950 of this work was only required because the respondent failed to adequately waterproof the installed windows. [6] On 24 April 2023 the applicant filed this claim in the Tribunal seeking $14,950. In support of this claim the applicant has provided the O Ltd’s inspection report, two invoices from P Ltd and the witness evidence of OB of P Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 250 Philip John Woolley v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 467 KB]

   ...the transfer sought by Mr Woolley was granted. The court directed parties to confer and produce a final set of conditions to be imposed on the new water use resource consent.2 The agreed conditions [2] A memorandum dated 13 October 2023 was filed confirming that Mr Woolley and the Council had agreed on a set of conditions which also includes the agreed irrigation area.3 The memorandum acknowledged the interests of the two s274 parties to this proceeding, recording: (a) Te Rūn...

5. [2023] NZEnvC 251 Shortbread Limited v Hamilton City Council [pdf, 3.4 MB]

   ...Shortbread Limited's submissions seeking amendments to the relevant structure plan maps to change the indicative location of a Stormwater Management Device (SMD) on their property at 66-67 Peacockes Lane (the Property). [2] The parties jointly filed a memorandum and a draft consent order on 31 August 2023 seeking to resolve Shortbread Limited's appeal in its entirety. Background Original submission and PDP Decision [3] PCS is a Council-led plan change pursuant to claus...

6. BS v KC & DC [2024] NZDT 721 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...an email from the local Council in which it said that this was the maximum height permitted (in the absence of a resource consent) for the fence because of the heritage listing that applies to KC and DC’s house. 3. After I issued my order BS filed an application for a rehearing. He said that new information had become available since the original hearing. The new information BS referred to was: a. He said the local Council had changed its position and told him that a 2m high fence...

7. NB v CF & MF [2024] NZDT 515 (13 August 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...and would have the septic tank cleaned and would provide a certificate to that effect. On 17 December 2020 NB confirmed the contract was unconditional and settlement occurred on 15 January 2021. 2. A little over three years after settlement, NB filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal for compensation to replace the sewage system. CF and MF disagreed that they were liable for the costs to install a new treatment system. 3. The issues to determine the claim are: (a) Did NB p...

8. YA & AZ v BT [2024] NZDT 765 (22 November 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...against the removal of the hedge separating the properties despite not being exactly on the boundary between the properties, because the applicants agreed to its location when it was planted by BT and his wife in 2015. Lastly, since the claim was filed, BT had arranged for the encroaching part of the driveway to be removed (essentially cut off) by a contractor. 3. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to deal with the encroachment by the driveway. That this would be a matter for the Distri...

9. [2015] NZEmpC 117 Phil’s Place Ltd v Kiwa Kiwa and Clark [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...Relations Authority BETWEEN PHIL'S PLACE LIMITED Plaintiff AND ALICE KIWA First Defendant AND JANELLE KIWA Second Defendant AND HAYDEN CLARK Third Defendant Hearing: By joint memorandum filed on 20 July 2015 Appearances: C Tuck, counsel for plaintiff L Campbell, counsel for defendant Judgment: 20 July 2015 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE M E PERKINS [1] By consent, the plaintiff’s challenge has been disc...

10. [2013] NZEmpC 95 Tan v Morningstar Institute of Education Ltd t/a Morningstar Preschool [pdf, 40 KB]

    ...challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CATHERINE TAN Plaintiff AND MORNINGSTAR INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION LIMITED T/A MORNINGSTAR PRESCHOOL Defendant Hearing: Memoranda from plaintiff filed on 23 and 24 May 2013 and defendant filed on 28 May 2013 Appearances: Garry Pollak, counsel for plaintiff Paul Pa'u, advocate for defendant Judgment: 29 May 2013 SUPPLEMENTARY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S T...