Search Results

1. MN & GD v X Ltd [2025] NZDT 72 (12 August 2025) [pdf, 242 KB]

   ...a reseller of the process used by the respondent, [reusable 1 The applicant has allowed a credit of $602.80 in invoice 05550 for unused materials. This amount has been allowed in the ordered amount. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 pool form], but he would not provide any opinion on the quality of the work, having not seen it other than in photographs. [8] JI’s evidence is the product, while capable of providing some remedy for a crooked pool edge, the outcome will always be...

2. LCRO 239/2016 RY v P AN and T AN (25 September 2018) [pdf, 314 KB]

   ...undertaking” provided by the builder’s lawyer, and secondly, “to seek clarification …[which] resulted in [Mr and Mrs AN] being given inaccurate assurances” by Mr RY concerning the deposit paid by them. [17] The Committee declined Mr and Mrs AN’s request for compensation because “there was always going to be an added cost component” to the purchase due to the insolvency of the builder. However, “in recognition of the additional expense and unnecessary stress incurr...

3. Keston v Redwood Corporation Ltd (Extension of Time to Commence Proceedings) [2022] NZHRRT 50 [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2022] NZHRRT 50 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 BACKGROUND [1] In May 2021 Mr Keston made an IPP6 request to the Redwood Corporation Limited trading as Pelican Club (Pelican Club) to access his personal information. [2] Pelican Club did not respond to the request within the statutory timeframe and Mr Keston complained to the Privacy Commissioner that his right to access his personal information under IPP 6 had been breached. [3] The Commiss...

4. TI v T Ltd [2025] NZDT 84 (18 February 2025) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. T Ltd is to pay TI $8,199.00 by 12 March 2025. 2. Upon payment of the amount ordered above, ownership of the cabin will revert to T Ltd. T Ltd may retrieve the cabin from TI’s premises. T Ltd must inform TI as to when they will retrieve the cabin. TI may not unreasonably refuse any request for access by T Ltd for the purposes of removing the cabin. Background 1. In March 2024 TI purchased a ‘flatpack’ cabin from T Ltd....

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. Form 26A Fixed Fees H-I [pdf, 270 KB]

   Templates V15 – July 2018 page 1 –– 07/18 form 26a Legal aid file no. Tax Invoice Criminal Legal Aid Fixed Fees Schedules H & I Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. Charges/CRNs To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Name of aided person Name of lead provider Name of law firm Provider number Firm number Court type Court of Appeal Supreme Court Court location Details of cl...

8. 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.

9. 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...

10. Legal aid consultation paper: new family legal support - September 2013 [pdf, 457 KB]

    ...14 Proposed Family Legal Support Fee Schedule: 15 4 Introduction The Family Court Reform Bill has been passed into legislation and the new Family Justice System is planned to begin from March 2014. As part of implementing the reforms, the Secretary for Justice intends to establish a new specified legal service to assist eligible people with their care of children and guardianship issues. This service will provide up to four hours of legal support for people who meet t...