Search Results

1. ZA v YB LCRO 164/2013 (31 August 2016) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...action in relation to Mr [ZA]’s complaints about Mr [YB]’s conduct was not necessary or appropriate, pursuant to s 138(2) of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 (the Act). Background [2] Mr [YB] acted for Ms [RI] and her husband, Mr [PK], as claimants in a claim (the claim) to the Weathertight Homes Tribunal (the WHT). A translator was involved to assist communication between Mr [YB] and his clients. Ms [RI]’s father, Mr [RI], was also involved in the claim process. The WHT...

2. KG v OAU [2022] NZDT 225 (29 November 2022) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...had pulled over to change its tyre. KG said the pothole caused extensive damage to not only his tyre, but also to the rim of the wheel. 2. KG telephoned the police at 1.00pm and E, the contractors who are engaged by OAU to repair the roads, performed a temporary repair by 2.15pm that day. 3. KG claimed to be compensated for the loss that his insurer has not covered, being half of the cost of a new tyre and his excess. 4. The issues to resolve the claim are: (a) Did OAU ow...

3. BT v US [2023] NZDT 112 (11 May 2023) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...set out in section 10 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 and does not provide for such a claim to be heard by it. Referee: L Thompson CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Date: 11 May 2023 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

4. D Ltd v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 371 (27 April 2023) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...rights, it appears that D Ltd would be able to estimate the lost measurements back to the point at which it first went wrong. However, in practice, this is not how this is usually calculated. In the hearing today, TB from D Ltd said there was an informal “365 days maximum” policy which D Ltd applies for the benefit of the customer; that only the last year would be estimated and recovered, unless there was evidence of deliberate fraud. In this instance that meant that only the final 12...

5. OQ v QM & ors [2024] NZDT 539 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...cross- claim was essentially a claim for costs incurred in preparing for a hearing, and the tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to award such costs. Referee: John Hogan Date: 22 July 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a r...

6. KB v NX [2024] NZDT 510 (25 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...not disposed of and therefore it is fair that the loss, if any, lies where it falls. As KB has not proven his claim it is dismissed. Referee: Ms Cowie DTR Date: 25 July 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...

7. QU v UQ & J Ltd [2024] NZDT 522 (9 July 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...sending him the final costs. He said that he wanted to get the claim resolved as soon as possible, but by the time that J Ltd sent him the final cost his circumstances had changed, and he was no longer able to pay. 12. The timeframe from J Ltd informing UQ that he was being held liable to J Ltd sending UQ the final repair costs was three months. Even if UQ could establish that this is an unreasonable or excessive delay, I do not see how this has any effect on UQ’s legal liability fo...

8. DD v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 318 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...company’s evidence that it had a no refund policy because: it provided evidence of how it notified and published its policy including: i. A4 signage in a stand on the counter where payments are made; and ii. I also accept that DD was given an A4 form to fill in, which had the title XX’s Membership and VIP Terms and Conditions, and that at number 5 of 13 brief terms, it made clear that: “The money deposited in [XX] is not refundable and can only be redeemed with XX’s products”....

9. [2011] NZEmpC 36 Zhou v CE of DOL [pdf, 232 KB]

   ...for appointment of a special advocate is connected with document disclosure and will be dealt with immediately before that final topic. This hierarchy of dealing should allow a logical and categorical treatment of the plaintiff‘s very broad request for more information. Application for further particulars of statement of defence [10] The plaintiff seeks an order pursuant to reg 6(2) that the defendant provide, within such time as may be fixed, further and better particulars and a...

10. [2019] NZEmpC 35 Elisara v Alliance New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 239 KB]

    ...insurance cover in breach of underwriting instructions. Mr Fearnley confirms that six of the 29 claims were identified as being in breach of the underwriting instruction; the others were identified as being compliant. He confirms that all documents requested by the plaintiff in relation to the residual 23 claims have been disclosed, whether assessed as relevant or not. Mr Fearnley also confirms that he has carefully reviewed each of the six claim files and has disclosed, with his...