Search Results

1. 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...

2. [2016] NZEmpC 16 Best Health Products Ltd v Nee [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...Ltd v Mitchell [2010] NZCA 385, [2010] ERNZ 446 at [20]. [43] In my view, Ms Nee should be awarded 80 per cent of her costs; that is $1,800. GST is not payable; nor am I satisfied that a “bureau fee” of $40 for “File and storage, forms, faxes, photocopying and Toll/Cell phone calls” should be the subject of the costs award. Costs with regard to BHPL’s application for leave [44] Mr Ogilvie advised that Ms Nee incurred costs in connection with the application...

3. Thoman v Devi [2014] NZIACDT 26 (17 March 2014) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...The Registrar filed a Statement of Complaint; the central issue is an allegation that the adviser dishonesty made a claim the complainant was a diesel mechanic in an application for residence. [2] The complainant says the adviser presented this information to Immigration New Zealand without his knowledge. [3] The issue is a very serious allegation as it involves the adviser’s alleged failure to address issues with her client and a claim she made a dishonest representation to Immigrat...

4. Brown v Otago Polytechnic and Progressive Enterprises (Recusal Application) [2014] NZHRRT 5 [pdf, 82 KB]

   ...making unfavourable decisions. Mr. Haines adjudication of my complaints amounts to transparent violations of my Civil Rights and the Crimes Act, and therefore it is only fitting that Mr. Haines stand down as adjudicator of my complaints. Mr Brown requested to give particulars of his complaint [11] As it was not clear whether this letter was a complaint in relation to the Otago Polytechnic proceedings (HRRT003/13) or those against Progressive Enterprises Ltd (HRRT004/13) or both, the...

5. Enviro NZ Services Ltd v Accident Compensation Corporation (Work-Related Personal Injury) [2025] NZACC 111 [pdf, 290 KB]

   ...Work-Related Personal Injury, ss 28, 30 Accident Compensation Act 2001] [1] The appellant, Enviro NZ Services Limited (Enviro NZ), appeals a review decision upholding the Corporation’s decision to grant cover for a shoulder sprain suffered by the claimant, Brian Dellow in a work-related accident. [2] Enviro NZ disputes that a work-related injury occurred. [3] The Corporation’s position is that it had sufficient evidence to accept the claim. [4] The Court was informed that Mr D...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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....

9. 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...

10. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...that by the time those inspections were undertaken, it is more reasonable that BM (and EM’s partner KM who accompanied BM) were more likely directly relying on their inspection and observations of how the vehicle looked and performed, rather than directly on KU’s earlier statement; g. for the avoidance of doubt I also do not accept on these facts that the provision of an A/C belt by KU (which is now acknowledged to be of the wrong type) was a representa