Search Results

1. LCRO 161/2020 SE v GR (31 March 2021) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...agreement for sale and purchase (the sale agreement) signed three months earlier on 3 March 2014 was subject to a finance condition being satisfied within “5 working days from the date of th[e] [sale] agreement”, and because the residential section formed part of land being subdivided, may also have been subject to a statutory condition.1 [4] At that time Ms SE was represented by another law firm, [Law Firm 2], who on 15 April 2014 forwarded a letter of engagement to Ms SE, and...

2. AF v FG & TI [2024] NZDT 347 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 158 KB]

   ...When the family member visited to collect [the dog] at the time AF had specified no one was home. 14. FG and TI then transferred the $3,384.00 back to AF. On 18 February 2024 FG and TI sent AF the following message: “…We are emailing to inform you that we have been speaking with a lawyer about the ownership of [the dog], and under the Dog Control Act 1996, section 2, a dog owner means a CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 6 person who has the dog in his or her possession, whe...

3. NN v TD [2021] NZDT 1343 (11 March 2021) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...between the parties? b. If so, what were the terms? c. Did TD breach the contract? d. What sums, if any, are payable by TD to NN? Was there a binding contract between the parties? 3. The relevant law is the law of contract. A contract is formed when both parties decide to exchange something of value. A contract can also be conditional, in that until the conditions are fulfilled the contract cannot be concluded. 4. In this case I find that the parties had entered into a co...

4. JT v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 227 (24 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...$75.00. She emailed Q Ltd suspecting the letter was a scam and was informed of her breach with photographic evidence. 2. Q Ltd subsequently have continued to charge administration/ recovery fees of $75.00 every two weeks. At the time of filing the claim, JT had paid Q Ltd $95.00 and had requests for payment from Q Ltd for $325.00. JT seeks an order that she is not liable to Q Ltd for $325.00. 3. Q Ltd did not appear at the hearing, nor were there any submissions filed in response to the...

5. DL v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 388 (5 September 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...problem with the hose reel is just as likely to have been caused by DL’s actions than by the product itself. 10. Therefore, the claim is dismissed. Referee: LK Whineray Date: 5 September 2023 Page 3 of 3 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...

6. SH v I Ltd [2024] NZDT 463 (26 June 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...there was limited access. The subfloor states that it was ‘only viewed from hole in cladding as limited access’. HL submitted that this was sufficient notice to a prospective CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 purchaser that if more information about these areas was required then a further investigation would be needed. 6. I accept that the Report does state the limitations of reporting on the areas that SH later found to be defective. 7. I have also considered w...

7. AODT Operational Policy - DELETE [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...depending on the numbers of appearances. A 'whole day' in AODT Court is calculated on attendance at the Court for at least 8 hours. If the Court day is actually shorter than 8 hours, that should be reflected in a lesser time recorded and claimed on the 'Record of attendance/ invoice' form. • attendance at any whānau hui, which are required on occasion at the direction of the presiding judge • other attendances or preparation if required between court sittings �...

8. LCRO 099/2016 IJ v KL (28 July 2017) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...review are whether Mr KL settled the matter contrary to Mr IJ’s instructions and authority, whether he overcharged Mr IJ, and following settlement 2 whether he withheld from Mr IJ copies of correspondence and information on Mr KL’s fee as requested by Mr IJ. Complaint [5] Mr IJ lodged a complaint with the New Zealand Law Society Complaints Service on 9 December 2014. The substance of his complaint was that Mr KL: (a) Did not keep him informed or act in his interests....

9. Smith v Waitakere City Council [pdf, 220 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00277 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN SEAN SMITH Claimant AND WAITAKERE CITY COUNCIL First respondent (Intituling continued next page) Hearing: 30 May & 1 June 2004 Appearances: Sean Smith in person as Claimant Susan Banbury & Georgina Grant for First Respondent Lawrence Ponniah for Second and Fourth Respondents Determination: 12 July 2004...

10. [2020] NZEmpC 236 Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 259 KB]

    ...time he had been away from that work.14 Skybus relied on the terms of the employment agreement to make this decision. [12] The Authority found that Mr Maheta refused to undertake retraining.15 Instead he wrote a lengthy letter to Skybus making requests for information about minutes of 8 At [27]. 9 At [26]. 10 At [28]. 11 At [30]. 12 At [31]. 13 At [44]. 14 At [44]–[45]. 15 At [46]. the meetings he had attende...