Search Results

1. BT v SM [2021] NZDT 1562 (22 July 2021) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...hearing. NI appeared with the applicant. She co-owns the house. The respondents had no objection to her participating in the presentation of his claim. Background CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 4. The claim relates to two separate flatmate agreements between the applicant and the respondents. One agreement was with SM and CI for $320.00 per week and a bond of $640.00. The other agreement was with UE and KS for $300.00 a week and a bond $600.00. 5. Both agreements sta...

2. KK v HL [2023] NZDT 290 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...a mechanic the following day. KK replied that she wanted to buy the car. 6. On 12th April HL drove the car to KK’s. She paid him $5,800.00 for the car. 7. KK’s says that on the 19th of April when she was driving her car home, one of her flatmates said the car sounded weird. KK continued to drive the car. On 27th April she noticed a warning light had come on on the dashboard. 8. KK made contact with HL, through her flatmate, and asked for a refund and to return the car to...

3. [2024] NZEnvC 253 Karmarkar v Auckland Council [pdf, 263 KB]

   ...arrangement being examined to be considered in terms of consistency or inconsistency with the connotations of domestic residence of a family or a group living in a situation analogous to a family, such as a group of intimate acquaintances, friends or flatmates jointly residing in a house or flat. Institutions of a commercial or public nature whose services or functions include the provision of accommodation, or board and accommodation, such as boarding- houses, rest- homes, hospitals, boar...

4. KK v HL [2023] NZDT 381 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...to a mechanic the following day. KK replied that she wanted to buy the car. 6. On 12th April HL drove the car to KK’s. She paid him $5,800.00 for the car. 7. KK says that on the 19th of April when she was driving her car home, one of her flatmates said the car sounded weird. KK continued to drive the car. On 27th April she noticed a warning light had come on the dashboard. 8. KK made contact with HL, through her flatmate, and asked for a refund and to return the car to him...

5. [2023] NZREADT 18 - Oberoi v REAA (28 July 2023) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...Mr Oberoi sought review by the Tribunal of the Registrar’s decision of 28 March 2023 to cancel his licence. [11] In his application to review, Mr Oberoi said the Authority’s emails went to “spam” and the posted letter was lost by his flatmates. He understands it is his responsibility to check his mail, but unfortunately, he missed it due to these circumstances. He would make sure this type of negligence would not happen in the future. [12] Following a telephone confere...

6. O v J [2016] NZIACDT 17 (30 March 2016) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...provide clients with invoices. The circumstances were: [6.2.1] Mr J’s fee was $18,000; it was potentially not fair and reasonable. [6.2.2] Mr J did not act professionally in accepting payment of his fee via an intermediary (the complainant’s flatmate). [6.2.3] Mr J failed to issue invoices. [6.3] Mr J breached clause 1.1(a) of the 2010 Code. The provisions required him to perform his services with due care, diligence, respect and professionalism. The circumstances were: [6.3.1]...

7. TH v TU [2022] NZDT 237 (7 December 2022) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...would be living directly above the studio unit, and so had the potential to impact him in terms of noise and other nuisance. He also said that the agreement he had been sent by TU was called a house sharing agreement and referred to a head tenant and flatmate. He said that if this was a tenancy, as defined by the RTA, TU should have sent him a tenancy agreement. 9. I find that the circumstances outlined in s 5(1)(n) do not describe the situation between TH and TU. That is because I do n...

8. SM v QN & FM [2024] NZDT 398 (14 June 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...on the evidence presented, a sum of $20.00 is awarded. As $50.00 was deducted from the bond, this results in a refund required of $30.00. Rent 4. The tenant left on 3 March 2024, and was therefore liable to pay rent under the terms of the flatmate agreement until 24 March. Notice was given on 3 March both by the fact of departure, and by text on the same day. 5. The tenant had in fact paid until 28 March and had therefore overpaid by 4 days ($120.00). When added to the clean...

9. BC v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 173 (14 May 2025) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...the parties agreed the applicant was a [suburb] resident. [5] I am satisfied on the evidence the applicant was parked in the wasteland area outside the tenants specifically allocated numbered carpark area. It is not relevant that the applicant’s flatmate told him he could park as he did, his flatmate does not have the authority to give such an assurance and the applicant should know this. However, despite the respondent’s submission to the contrary, I am also satisfied this wasteland...

10. KC & LC v BD [2024] NZDT 335 (16 May 2024) [pdf, 140 KB]

    ...1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 335 APPLICANT KC APPLICANT LC RESPONDENT BD The Tribunal orders: BD is to pay KC and LC (jointly) $350.00 on or before 14 June 2024. Reasons: 1. LC, KC and BD were flatmates during 2023. At the end of December BD gave each of LC and KC 14 days written notice to end the arrangement. The next day there was an incident after which LC and KC left the property permanently. They seek an order that BD is liable t...