Search Results

1. TK v BD & TT Ltd [2024] NZDT 530 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...is not proven. Is BD entitled to $1,200.00 for a days’ lost work? 23. BD says TK cancelled the last appointment but he didn’t reschedule after that and sent the 10 January email to BD. 24. The terms of the contract are in the consent form signed by TK and the General information which was provided to TK. The General Information says the $200.00 deposit is non-refundable and two weeks’ notice is required to move an appointment and it two weeks is not given the deposit will...

2. C Ltd v J Inc [2024] NZDT 105 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...Inc says that C Ltd is liable to pay it $82,000.00 damages but has agreed to reduce its claim to $30,000.00 to come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. 4. After the main hearing of this claim I gave leave for both parties to file further information, this was mainly because J Inc had not been aware of the hearing due to an issue with an email address and attended at very short notice. Information was received from both parties, which I decided introduced enough new material that...

3. DQ Ltd v SM Ltd [2022] NZDT 6 (18 November 2021) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...determining the claim. However, that does not mean that the respondent is free to initiate new legal proceedings to recover this amount before seeking clarification or attempting to overturn the Tribunal order. [16] The title search fees clearly formed part of the application before the Tribunal. The Tribunal order of 25 June 2020 finally determined the application as filed on 23 December 2020 unless parts of the application are specifically excluded in the Tribunal order. An example of w...

4. ST v SC [2023] NZDT 86 (7 March 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...up as follows: a. Cost of repairs to ST’s vehicle $ 5,048.50 b. Reimbursement of Tribunal filing fee $ 180.00 c. Rounding $ 1.50 $ 5,230.00 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a negligence claim against SC? b. If not, did SC fail in his duty to take reasonable care while racing? c. Is ST entitled to $5,230.00? Does clause 1 in the [Race] entry form preclude ST from pursuing a ne...

5. Overview Trustee Ltd as trustee of the Carrigafoyle Trust v Cook & Anor as trustees of the CC Trust [2011] NZWHT Auckland 35 [pdf, 309 KB]

   ...one expert was not being called shortly before the hearing commenced. Experts met only during the hearing period. If documentation had been prepared on time an experts‟ conference before the hearing may have been possible and would have informed the assessor of the differing views contrary to his. This would have especially applied once he was advised as to the application of Xypex coating in lieu of paint or plaster. Calderbank letter [11] In August 2008 all the responde...

6. Completing, filing and serving documents

   On this page: Completing forms Completing affidavits Amended pleadings Filing documents Serving documents Completing forms Find and complete a form you require on our forms and fees page. The forms are available as Word documents to be downloaded, edited and printed. Many of the documents you will need to file are prescribed forms set by the Employment Court Regulations 2000. These forms must follow certain standards in terms of presentation and content. The registry can decline to accept for...

   Located in:

   1. Employment Court >
   2. Apply to the Employment Court

7. FG v QP [2023] NZDT 156 (30 June 2023).pdf [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...CLAIM G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim relating to the contract for music arrangement is struck out and the counter-claim is struck out; and QP and G Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay $2928.05 to FG, trading as BN, for performance services, on or before 28 July 2023. Reasons 1. FG provided QP originally with quotations that QP had requested for music medley arrangements for two events he was planning for March 2023. The quotations were accepted, FG carried...

8. TG v ES Ltd [2023] NZDT 11 (6 April 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...above, claims that it has provided extensive documentation to both the applicant and the Tribunal including evidence of the costs charged including the variations. The respondent submits that it cannot be expected to micromanage cost reporting and the information supplied is sufficient to prove its claim for payment. [9] The respondent admits there have been cost overruns but claims this is due to the very difficult building environment over the last few years and the variations requeste...

9. D Ltd v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 190 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...for the footings as per the original contract specifications was delivered to site in August and Sept 2021, before a variation for footings came through on 5 Oct 2021. This finding is based on evidence provided at the last hearing by D Ltd in the form of their steel supplier’s dispatch dockets matched to their truck GPS data which shows delivery of the starters and other relevant steel was made in August and September 2021. Is L Ltd liable to pay for all the steel already delivere...

10. Marsden [2012] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 148 KB]

    ...assumed that the outstanding items were likely attended to prior to 27 July 2001 because of their minor nature and the long delay between the failed and passed final inspections. However it would be just as reasonable to assume that the delay in requesting the further final inspection was because the outstanding matters had not been attended to until late 2001. This is the type of claim therefore that Courtney J was considering when she noted in Turner that determining the built b...