Search Results

1. DH v H Ltd [2025] NZDT 80 (17 February 2025) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...company G Ltd) it was between $44-48,000.00. DH and NC met to discuss the concept drawings and potential changes, and from there the relationship broke down to where both parties no longer wanted to continue with it. 3. The parties presented information and evidence to the Tribunal regarding the claim. I would like to reassure the parties that I have considered all information and evidence presented when reaching my decision. However, I note that this order refers only to essential ma...

2. AR v ZE LCRO 83/2012 (6 May 2016) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...must approach Mr and Mrs AR’s application for review of the determination of the Standards Committee afresh. The parties [6] The Standards Committee processed the complaint as being a complaint by Mr AR. That is how the complaint application form was completed. The applicants for the review were recorded as “Mr & Mrs AR”. Mrs AR is not a person who could apply for a review as she was not, and had not been treated by the Standards Committee as, a complainant. However, Mr...

3. Make a civil claim

   There are many different claims you can start. They usually have different fees, forms and time limits. Find out about the claims you can make in the District Court Find out about the claims you can make in the High Court Get legal help You can get a lawyer to help you make a civil claim. If you can’t afford a lawyer you may be able to get: legal aid free community legal help

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Civil >
   3. Court process

4. Bryan v Accident Compensation Corporation (Attendant Care Payments) [2024] NZACC 155 (30 September 2024) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Epilim was first prescribed for Jessica. Following acceptance of the claim, Ms Bryan applied for backdated attendant care for Jessica. On 29 September 2021, attendant care payments were approved and backdated to 1 April 2002. [6] Ms Bryan then requested the Corporation to consider payment for backdated attendant care for the period from 15 July 1992 to 1 April 2002. On 31 August 2022, the Corporation wrote to Ms Bryan stating that after considering the legislative requirement...

5. TQ v OC [2021] NZDT 1620 (26 July 2021) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...recourse available to him or her. Under section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) when someone has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, that person is entitled to damages (a form of compensation) as if the representation were a term of the contract that has been breached. 6. A misrepresentation must be untrue and a statement of past or present fact. 7. It is not enough for a party to say that a representation c...

6. HN v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 146 (16 June 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...ordered to pay $48 to N Ltd by 5pm on 19 July 2023. Reasons: 2. HN had an appointment to see a doctor at N Ltd on 14th June 2022 to obtain a driver’s medical certificate. The appointment went as planned where a few checks were completed, and a form was filled which would assist HN with his driver’s licence. 3. After the appointment, HN was given an invoice for $98 by the reception at the clinic which is the subject of this dispute. 4. HN is of the view that this fee sh...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 142 Leota v The CE of the Ministry of Social Development [pdf, 279 KB]

   ...matter, the defendant breached good faith obligations and in two respects misused 1 Leota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Social Development [2016] NZERA Auckland 54. confidential information relating respectively to his medical condition and the state of health of his children. [3] The plaintiff seeks remedies of reimbursement (with interest) for lost income arising when he took further sick leave following the withdraw...

8. Walton v Holden [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...design for the dwellinghouse earlier on but Mr Holden had elected not to use that design and had proceeded on his own as I mention below. 2.5 I also struck out Mr Chandler as a respondent pursuant to s34 of the Act on the basis that the first information had indicated he was the 00003 Determination 5 person who signed the Code Compliance Certificate but as it transpired that related to the adjoining cross-lease residence and the Code Compliance Certificate for this dwelli...

9. [2023] NZREADT 23 - ZI v CAC 2107 (17 August 2023).pdf [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...dated 2 July 2023) against the decision of 12 May 2023. It was against the second respondent. In the appeal form, the appellant acknowledged being outside the appeal period of 20 working days. [10] At the same time, the appellant filed a “Request for Extension to Appeal Deadline” (undated). She relevantly states: Upon receiving the decision from the CAC, I wrote to my lawyer to guide me through the appeal process. However, despite multiple attempts to contact my lawyer via...

10. Strickland v Gaensicke [2011] NZWHT Auckland 46 [pdf, 273 KB]

    ...changes were made to the design of the mezzanine floors, roof height in some locations and spacing of joists. During a failed pre-line check in May 2001 and a recheck in July 2001 the Council inspector noted some of the changes to the plans and requested further documentation. The paper records suggest little was done about this until construction was almost complete. At that stage either the Council or Andre approached Mr Burrows for certification that the dwelling was still...