Search Results

1. Liu & Anor v Auckland Council & Ors [2013] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 257 KB]

   ...Tomov v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 34. 4 hearing the claimants withdrew their claim against these respondents and they are therefore removed. The agent, Kim Robinson, gave evidence at the hearing after being summoned at the request of the Council. [6] The sixth respondent, PBS Distributors Limited (PBS), supplied the Ventclad cladding system to MHD. PBS complied with orders for discovery but took no other steps and did not appear at the hearing. PBS went i...

2. Hide v Official Assignee (Confidentiality Claim) [2019] NZHRRT 1 [pdf, 302 KB]

   ...appointment dated 14 April 2014 issued by the Official Assignee to Mr Dennis Parsons, Chartered Accountant, authorising him to conduct the s 165 examinations. [3.3] The relevant parts of the s 165 examination transcripts which contain personal information about Mr Hide. [4] In compliance with that direction Mr LGA Currie on 29 March 2018 swore a supplementary affidavit of documents. Mr Currie is employed by the New Zealand Insolvency and Trustee Service (a business unit of the Minis...

3. [2010] NZEmpC 129 Metallic Sweeping (1998) Ltd v Ford [pdf, 64 KB]

   ...COUCH [1] This case raises three interrelated issues. The first is how the Court can conduct a de novo hearing of a costs determination made by the Employment Relations Authority. The second is the extent to which the Court should call for information when a defendant fails to take any steps in the proceeding. The third issue is the manner and extent to which a party’s financial circumstances should be taken into account in making an award of costs. [2] Ms Ford was employe...

4. T Ltd v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 93 (2 September 2022) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...compressor, charger and battery kit (the kit) online through Q Ltd for $1079.00. 2. Q Ltd responded to the online order that the product was not available instore and would therefore have to be ordered from the supplier. 3. On 22 July Q Ltd informed T Ltd that the kit was no longer available and refunded T Ltd his payment. 4. T Ltd is claiming $2,000.00 for the cost of purchasing the kit as to acquire the kit the individual components of the kit now have to be purchased separa...

5. SK v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 196 (12 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...Ltd has demonstrated they had the authority of the lessee of the land to tow vehicles from its site, his claim for a refund and associated costs does not succeed. Referee Perfect Date: 12 May 2023 Page 2 of 2 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 a rehe...

6. D Ltd v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 228 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...no evidence. NY for R Ltd said they had requested [authorities]’s representative to attend the second hearing as a witness, but [authorities] declined to appear. Nevertheless, given the issues raised by R Ltd there would have been other written forms of evidence, such as independent testing, to support its claims, yet nothing was presented by R Ltd. D Ltd say that their work was done properly and the neighbour was causing problems for the site. 5. In the absence of any evidence...

7. EU v UX [2023] NZDT 313 (23 June 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...a total of $14,950.00 to have the work completed by another supplier, whereas the unpaid balance of the contract price was only $8,387.00. The amount required to put the consumer into the position he would have been in if the contract had been performed is therefore $6,563.00. This exceeds the amount claimed, and no more than the $4,990.00 notified to the supplier can be awarded without adjourning to give further notice. For these reasons, I find that the supplier must pay $4,990.00 to the...

8. Lee & Anor [2011] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 81 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 9 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6422: DENNIS LEE AND SANDRA HOCKINGS-LEE – 15A SYLVANIA CRESCENT, LYNFIELD ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Dennis Lee and Sandra Hockings-Lee are the owners of a leaky home. They filed a claim under sect...

9. Family Legal Advice Service Operational Policy v1.8 June 2018 [pdf, 1 MB]

   ...Operational Policy for providing early legal advice for disputes under the Care of Children Act 2004 Family Legal Advice Service Operational Policy v1.8 July 2018 Although all reasonable steps have been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information contained in this document, the Ministry of Justice disclaims any and all responsibility for any inaccuracy, error, omission, or any other kind of inadequacy, deficiency, or flaw in, or in relation to, the information; and ful...

10. SX v SD Ltd [2022] NZDT 208 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 94 KB]

    ...supplier fails to do so, one of the options available to the consumer is to cancel the contract. In the case of goods, the consumer can obtain a refund of what they have paid; in the case of services, cancellation stops the obligation for further performance but does not necessarily require a full refund of payments made up to that point. 9. SD Ltd provided information about the materials used in the contraction of its cabins. It disputes that there was a chemical odour and says t...