Search Results

1. WC v HM [2023] NZDT 486 (2 October 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 486 APPLICANT WC RESPONDENT HM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. When WC moved in with her partner at [address] in February 2022, she formed a bond with a young white and ginger tabby tom cat who regularly visited her. She called him P and said the window was left open for him to come and go as he pleased. Most nights he slept in her bed. A notice was placed on the com...

2. Form-42_Civil_Victims-Order.pdf [pdf, 248 KB]

   Version 21 – October 2023 page 1 10/23 form 42 Tax Invoice Civil Legal Aid Fixed Fees Victims' Orders against Violent Offenders (Applicant & Respondent) Legal aid file no. Invoice date Invoice number GST number Lead provider’s ref. To: Legal Aid, DX Box Number City Customer Lead provider Provider number Law firm Firm number Details of claim Fixed Fee: Date fixed fee(s) completed Fixed Fee Plus: Covers period from...

3. LN v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 717 (4 December 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...that she would not be entitled to a refund in any circumstances. That clause may not be enforceable however there is another clause headed ‘Force Majeure’ which states that the respondent will not be liable or responsible for any failure to perform or delay in performance of any obligations that is caused by events outside its reasonable control. The New Zealand Government’s response to Covid and the resulting mandates was outside the control of the respondent. I could not order a...

4. What happens at a hearing

   On this page: Hearing location Who should attend the hearing Who can give evidence Evidence that can be presented What happens at the hearing What you should bring to the hearing Requests for adjournments Hearings are held in public and usually take 1 to 2 hours, depending on how complex the case is. The Tribunal also has the power to hear cases on the papers. If all parties agree to this process then that means you do not have to attend a formal hearing in a courtroom and the Tribunal c...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal >
   3. What happens next

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 218 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...defendant was entitled to costs and timetabled an exchange of submissions. On 16 November 2023, the defendant sought costs on a Category 2B basis amounting to $4,302.2 1 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Knight [2023] NZEmpC 198. 2 The amount claimed is less than the defendant’s actual costs. [3] In response, Mr Tan accepted that Category 2B applies but four propositions were advanced that: (a) Carrington had applied in good faith and, even though it was ultimately uns...

9. [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...

10. 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...