Search Results

1. QN & Ors v KN [2024] NZDT 29 (28 February 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...to the car was repaired at no cost to them, as that cost was paid for by QN. 30. KN is to pay to QN the sum of $3,223.99 on or before 21 March 2024. Referee: P Byrne Date: 28 February 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 reh...

2. BQ & LI v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 519 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...joined as an Applicant as I accept that he was a joint purchaser of the property. 3. The Applicants claim $16,771.50 comprising repair costs and inspection report costs, 5 weeks and 4 days lost rental of $1,782.86, being $520.00 a week, less LI’s former rental costs, $3,190.00 in administration time and overheads; and $6,927.25 for estimated additional repairs. 4. The issues to be determined are: a. Was the construction carried out with reasonable care and skill and was the o...

3. BD v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 63 (14 February 2024) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...of guarantee. This is because she has acknowledged she had been willing to bid up to $1,100,000.00 at auction before C Ltd’s inspection, and based on their inspection and report, lowered her maximum bid to $950,000.00. 16. BD provided no information about other significant costs that the report highlighted which would account for such a difference. I have to infer that it was the extent of risk that the report clearly highlighted, that caused such a large reduction in BD’s maxim...

4. SU & WH v BT [2024] NZDT 79 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...[towing company] of $644.00 was a reasonably foreseeable consequential loss; and f. In the absence of evidence to the contrary I preferred the insurer’s evidence that 7 days storage was not unreasonable in the circumstances for an assessment to be performed, and I accept that the sum claimed is supported by the invoice from [towing company]. 11. So, I order BT is to pay X Ltd the total sum of $13,614.39 on or before Monday 18 March 2024. Referee: G.M. Taylor Date: 26 Febru...

5. DM v CI & QI [2024] NZDT 442 (24 June 2024) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...father) saw the car parked, unlocked. QI was concerned that CI was driving the car illegally as he only has a Learner’s licence. QI removed CI’s belongings from the car and disabled the car by removing a relay from under the bonnet. 5. DM was informed about what had happened and told CI to return the car to his grandmother’s house and leave it there. CI arranged for a friend’s grandfather to tow the car and it was left outside DM’s grandmother’s house. 6. When DM ret...

6. LCRO 47/2014 HJ v GK [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...returned, to the writer’s offices, by 5pm Wednesday, 28 August 2013 (note, no extension of time shall be granted), failing which appropriate action will be taken through the relevant authorities without further notice to you. [7] Mr HJ responded claiming ownership of the forms, and rejecting the Directors’ claims. [8] Mr GK replied on 30 August 2013, describing Mr HJ’s claim to ownership as “ludicrous” and, on behalf of the Directors, rejected his explanation. Mr GK’s let...

7. Steele v Commissioner of Police (Jurisdiction) [2025] NZHRRT 21 [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...[1] In June 2021 Mr Steele filed these four proceedings in the Tribunal under the Privacy Act 2020 (2020 Act). In each proceeding Mr Steele alleges an interference with his privacy, arising from the responses of Police to information privacy requests he made under the Privacy Act 1993 (1993 Act). [2] All of the proceedings involve complaints which had been investigated by the Privacy Commissioner (Commissioner) and in respect of which the Commissioner had concluded his investi...

8. Re Tai Rakena (Rejection of Statement of Claim) [2017] NZHRRT 27 [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...December 2016 in respect of file reference C/28386. In this Certificate the Commissioner certifies he conducted an investigation into the question whether Corrections provided Mr Tai Rakena with all the information he requested on certain PC.01 forms, being PC.01 4001501; PC.01 401032 and PC.01 401143. In these proceedings a case management teleconference was held on 12 May 2017 but the timetable then made will not expire until 1 September 2017. Thereafter the proceedings will be hear...

9. Algie & Others v ACC [2013] NZACA 6 [pdf, 56 KB]

   ...claimed. [10] The appeal was founded on there being no financial outlay, but the services had to be “actual” to have any chance of coming within ss 121(1) and 80(1). There was no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the Corporation had ever formed the view that the services and attendances were not performed, and the wording of the standard form decision letters and the payment of attendant care by the same 3 caregivers for 18 of the appellants under the later legisl...

10. LN v N Family Trust and others [2023] NZDT 503 (18 September 2023) [pdf, 251 KB]

    ...possible to persons lawfully on the property. Any such entry does not authorise LN or any person to cut down, lop or injure any tree or shrub on [Address 1] without the consent of the N Family Trust. 11. LN is to keep the N Family Trust reasonably informed about the progress with the preparation for building the fence and should give The Trust at least three days’ notice before work commences. Reasons: 12. The parties are next door neighbours. LN owns and lives in [Address 2]...