Search Results

1. EN v KH [2022] NZDT 182 (23 September 2022) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...alternative $2,528.31 or $4,999.00 from Ms KH. This is on the basis of half (or most) of the $5,056.62 costs incurred in 2021 and 2022 for surveying, plumbing and engineering design work. 3. Mr EN said this work was necessary as the DCC had informed him that an existing, unconsented portion of driveway would be removed unless the proposed driveway was progressed. Mr EN said that he and Ms KH had an agreement based on the lodging of the resource consent and Ms KH did not inform him...

2. MacGregor v Craig (Rescission of Confidentiality Orders) [2016] NZHRRT 23 [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...that publication of some parts, but not all, of the decision would provide an opportunity for her to be publicly vindicated. [11] She also submitted non-publication orders should be made to uphold and protect the confidentiality undertakings that formed the core of the claim before the Tribunal. The broad terms of the redactions sought were listed in a memorandum of 16 March 2016. It is not necessary to review the proposals here but it should be observed the redactions were so extens...

3. McAneney v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 63 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...$289,659.55. In addition the Council has successfully established the claim for contribution of $153,000 against Mr Kells. [49] There is no need for the Tribunal to consider the contribution to settlement made by the second respondents as no request was made by that party to this proceeding. Conclusion and Orders [50] The claimants’ claim is appropriate to the extent of $289,659.55. For the reasons set out in this determination I make the following orders: i. M...

4. HN v UC & JS Ltd [2023] NZDT 166 (6 June 2023) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...entrance of the workshop that stated JS Limited. UC said he would urgently provide a photo of that sign, but none was received during the adjournment period. 8. In order for a business to get the benefit of its limited liability status it must inform parties that it is entering into a contract with a limited liability company. On the facts of this case, I find that it was not brought to HN’s attention that he was entering into a contract with a company and not with UC personally....

5. DC v KN [2023] NZDT 309 (22 May 2023) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...until 25 June 2023. Each were to pay $230.00 per week as their share of the rent. On or about 8 February 2023, KN unexpectedly moved out without notice and stopped paying rent. DC and CI carried on covering the rent in his absence. DC filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim for unpaid rent in accordance with an agreement between tenants in the sum of $4,600.00. 3. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. Has KN breached a legally binding agreement?...

6. YD & YA v CU Ltd [2024] NZDT 491 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...applicants had to pay $899.00 to replace the motor. CU Ltd could not locate any invoice so did not know whether the motor had been included in the 2018 repairs and whether or not it might be covered by any warranty. The applicants could not find this information from their insurance company or the garage company either. However, CU Ltd thought they might have passed on the invoice to the applicants to pay the garage directly. 6. The applicants bear the onus of proving on the balance of p...

7. [2012] NZEmpC 161 O Hagan v Waitomo Adventures Ltd [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...from the bookings computer differed significantly from those in the end of month report for April, provided by the Reservations Manager in May 2009. 12 May meeting [11] On 11 May 2009 Mr O’Hagan wrote to Mr Andreef. The following day he requested an urgent meeting, at which he presented the letter. Mr Andreef was at home, preparing a speech that he was giving that evening at an awards ceremony. He was also attending to some work that needed to be completed as a matter of...

8. Waitangi Tribunal theme D - Crown's right of preemption [pdf, 4.2 MB]

   ...was given an early draft of my report, and my tables detailing the pre-emption waiver purchases, which he used in the early part of his report in particular. This chapter, while initially relying on John's framework, includes some additional information and, in parts, a change in interpretation based on knowledge gained through my research for the earlier chapters of this report. Pre-emption was one of the earliest practical expressions of British sovereignty. One of the key aspects...

9. IH v LM [2022] NZDT 136 (3 August 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...fencing notice properly served? 5. Section 10 of the Fencing Act 1978 provides that an occupier who desires to compel a neighbouring “occupier” to contribute to the cost of work on a fence shall serve a notice on the occupier in the prescribed form. “Occupier” is defined in s 2 to mean the owner in most cases including the present case. If the owner at the relevant time was Q Ltd as the respondent stated, then the wrong respondent has been named on the fencing notice and in this c...

10. CH v NB [2021] NZDT 1680 (8 November 2021) [pdf, 127 KB]

    ...c) Is GST payable? Did NB agree to pay for QC Ltd’s service? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 4. The common law of contract allows parties to enter into legally binding agreements. A contract need not be in writing; an agreement can be formed verbally or inferred from the parties’ conduct. However, the applicant bears the onus of proving the terms of the contract, which can be difficult where the other party disputes what was agreed. 5. The adviser, representing QC Ltd, gave...