Search Results

1. BD & NL v CM Ltd t-a HD [2021] NZDT 1669 (14 October 2021) [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...cookers) from TT based in [City], Australia, and the shipment was sent straight to IN from China. HI says he left IN in February 2013 to set up HD through CM and he took the remaining (approximately 67) [Brand] cookers with him. Based on the available information, I am satisfied that CM distributed the [Brand 1] cookers in New Zealand and is therefore the manufacturer of the Cooker under s12 of the CGA. 11. The Applicants say that they could not get the Cooker repaired or obtain a repl...

2. List-of-Fee-Changes-1-July-2025.pdf [pdf, 519 KB]

   ...$728 3 Filing any other initiating document (as defined in regulation 4), unless a different filing fee is prescribed for that document elsewhere in the fees table $1,755 $1,819 4 Filing a statement of claim between defendants $143 $148 5 Filing an amended statement of claim $143 $148 6 Interlocutory application (a) without notice (b) on notice relating to a proceeding to which item 2, 3, 46 or 48 applies (c...

3. Phon v Waitakere City Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 24 [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...situation is not comparable to the design. He implicitly acknowledges a causative link between the defects and the design could well be lacking. In addition, as in the other report, he confirms that details that were lacking from the plans (which formed the basis of the claim against the Council and Mr Kaill) were provided for in the Harditex technical information.

4. Turner v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 36 [pdf, 327 KB]

   ...Mr Paykel gave evidence that the Harditex cladding should have been installed prior to the fascia. He attributed responsibility to the Harditex installer who should have either had the fascia removed before putting the Harditex in place or requested the roofer to return to remediate the flashing to protect the junction. I accept this evidence. [16] The defect resulted in decay to the framing below and adjoining return walls and led to the need to re-clad the affected wal...

5. GO & KO v MD [2025] NZDT 10 (16 April 2025) [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...ownership. 5. To the extent that the Tribunal can make such a direction, the Tribunal directs Crown Law Trust of the New Zealand Government to refund to GO the sum of $450.00 that she paid into the [redacted] Court on 28 November 2022. 6. GO’ claim for a refund of the civil enforcement fee she paid to the Ministry of Justice ($600.00) is struck out because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make such an order. 7. MD’s counterclaim is dismissed. REASONS 1. Th...

6. SG v O Ltd [2021] NZDT 1635 (1 July 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...If it had not, O LTD could have been liable for the full amount and having to make a claim against [Mechanic]. SG has done O LTD a service. Referee: B M Smallbone Date: Thursday, 1 July 2021 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 reh

7. SX v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 788 (16 September 2024) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...overheated and J Ltd and its reports are wrong when they say he had a pre-existing overheating problem. SX explained in great detail his long history as a long haul truck and trailer driver. He explained the processes he follows to check and monitor the performance of his truck and he explained a similar checking and monitoring process for his ute. 5. He states on the day of the accident he had worked a 13 hour day and had a very heavy load on his ute and this was the first time he wa...

8. N Ltd v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 191 (12 March) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...further work was required to be done to complete Stage 2 after N Ltd invoiced on 18 March 2023, differ significantly. 12. D Ltd contend that there were significant quality issues in the work completed by N Ltd and they submitted evidence in the form of texts from their site manager, X, to N Ltd, and also an invoice for remedial work from the building contractor, S Ltd (‘S LTD’). S Ltd was engaged to complete Block I when D Ltd cancelled N Ltd’s contract. The texts from X to N L...

9. Overview Trustee Ltd as trustee of the Carrigafoyle Trust v Cook & Anor as trustees of the CC Trust [2011] NZWHT Auckland 19 [pdf, 335 KB]

   ...prevented by altering the doors to single action enabling them to be closed against head, jamb and sill seals. Such a solution would change the nature of the doors and the aesthetics. [54] There is no evidence that the pivot doors have not performed as one would expect of a door with no jamb. There is also no evidence of damage as water on stone did not affect the building. There is accordingly no loss resulting from this alleged defect. [55] The claimant said that a pro...

10. [2022] NZIACDT 19 – TA v Tian (Sanctions) (25 July 2022) [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...Following a number of successful student and visitor visa applications, a student visa application lodged on 11 October 2016 was unsuccessful. Ms Tian did not inform the complainant of the decline. She then lodged student visa applications and s 61 requests from 24 November 2016 until 1 March 2017, all without instructions from the complainant or his mother and without telling them of the outcome of any application. [8] On 8 June 2017, Ms Tian filed an expression of interest on...