Search Results

1. Dowling v Jacobsen Creative Surfaces Ltd [pdf, 18 KB]

   ...evidence and expertise of the WHRS assessor. 2.4 The applications by the first and second respondents for costs do not have equal merit. Mr Swan appeared for Mapei at conferences and filed an application for strike out. This was in the form of a one page letter with no evidence or affidavits provided in support. Mapei did not file a response to the claim and therefore did not call witnesses. At the hearing Mr Swan conducted limited cross-examination of some witnesses. The...

2. E and E v IAG New Zealand Ltd [2019] CEIT-2019-0013 [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...SOMERVILLE DATED 18 December 2019 ___________________________________________________________________________ Case stated [1] The respondent (IAG) has filed an application for referral of a question of law. That application, which took the form of a memorandum of counsel, outlined the question of law for which it sought referral and attached a draft case stated. The application was served on the other parties but only the applicants and the third respondent (QBE)...

3. DD & UD v AX & Ors [2024] NZDT 187 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...issued because the boss was angry when he found out their salesperson had given the [courtesy car] to DD and UD without authority. That, of course, is not N Ltd’s customers’ responsibility, and N Ltd’s recognition that hire payment is not due, is formalised via a declaration of non-liability. Are UD/DD liable to pay costs of repair to the [courtesy car]? 20. The circumstances of UD’s collision are such that, in the ordinary course of events, she would be liable to pay for...

4. BE v TT Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 838 (18 November 2024) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...poor condition and needs replacement? b. Did the Respondents misrepresent the condition of the roof? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 c. Can BE prove that vendors knew about the poor condition of the roof and have they withheld this information from her? Can BE prove that the roof is in poor condition and needs replacement? 7. BE she hired a builder to replace windows in the property with double-glazed windows in May 2024. The same builder was also asked to clean the gut...

5. LCRO 184/2015 WD v YR (6 July 2017) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...[30] The application for review was not withdrawn and in October 2016 Mr WD provided a “Complete statement for LCRO hearing” which was forwarded to Mr YR.20 [31] No further comment was received from Mr YR, and in November 2016 this Office requested consent from both parties for the review to be completed on the material to hand. Both parties provided their consent and the review was scheduled for completion on the papers.21 [32] On 27 February 2017 this Office received a docum...

6. KK & PM v S Ltd & SH Ltd [2023] NZDT 43 (23 January 2023) [pdf, 265 KB]

   ...professional, despite black pipes being present and the house being constructed during the period when those pipes were used. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 7 13. KK and PM submitted that at the very least the report should have informed them of the possibility that some of the pipes may have been the original Dux Quest piping that was prone to splitting and leaking, both along the pipe and also at the joins. 14. EQ agreed that he would notify his client of the presenc...

7. PV v OS & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 172 (3 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...panel beater to get the car fixed. PV refused and filed a claim with J Ltd. 5. The initial claim amount was for $4,670.03. I noted that the repairers’ invoice was for $3,962.53. At the hearing J Ltd said they neglected to include the rental information. They therefore deducted the rental charge from its claim. The claim amount is therefore $3,962.53. 6. OS and B Ltd are disputing liability. WS is the director and shareholder of B Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 T...

8. T v C Ltd v IQ & LQ [2023] NZDT 230 (18 September 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...hearing that this was a fair outcome and was no longer making any claim against IQ & LQ. Referee: Hannan DTR Date: 2 November 2023 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...

9. CU Ltd v ZS & HC Ltd [2023] NZDT 588 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from Page 2 of 4 the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision....

10. TD v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 414 (14 August 2023) [pdf, 192 KB]

    ...first repair, she would have had the same answer as U Ltd gave at the hearing, which was that she caused the problem, and the motorhome was of acceptable quality. 13. TD did not lose her right to claim from U Ltd under the CGA because she informed U Ltd of a problem and U Ltd did not accept it had liability for repairs. What amount should be ordered? 14. I have ordered all the amounts claimed by TD except for the $350.00 for incidentals. I accept a friend helped out howe...