Search Results

1. NT v BP Ltd [2022] NZDT 5 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...“unit” is defined as the whole pallet (s247(1)(c)(i)). 10. The liability of the respondent is therefore limited in this case to $2,000.00. Referee: J Robertshawe Date: 17 January 2022 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 a rehe...

2. KN v BT [2020] NZDT 1365 (9 December 2020) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...further agreement regarding the driveway fence but no agreement was ever reached. Is BT liable to contribute to the cost of the driveway fence as claimed by KN? 9. Once no agreement was reached regarding the driveway fence, KN needed to issue a formal fencing notice to BT. This is required by section 10 of the Fencing Act 1978, and the Act details what is required to be specified in such a notice. 10. KN’s email to BT of 31 July 2020 contained 4 quotations as attachments an...

3. FD v TN & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 30 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...probabilities. 10. As a result of the above finding, TN was not negligent and is not liable for the losses suffered by FD/J Ltd as a result of the collision. Referee Perfect Date: 25 January 2024 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 a re...

4. CD Ltd v CO Ltd [2022] NZDT 279 (10 November 2022) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...interest on the claimed amount in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016. Interest totals $171.41, so the total amount payable by CO Ltd is $9152.91. Referee Perfect Date: 10 November 2022 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 a...

5. OS v E Ltd [2023] NZDT 89 (23 March 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...depended upon when they arrived in OS’ letterbox. h. There is no evidence of what else E Ltd ought to have done or could have done when OS contacted them on 19 December. There is nothing to suggest that another courier company could have perform better or faster. 13. For these reasons the claim is dismissed. Referee: LK Whineray Date: 23 March 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you b...

6. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...Room Deck – Waterproof Membrane 4.4.1 The drawings show that this deck was to be constructed with timber joists, spanning from a wall plate fixed to the external wall of the house to a double beam on timber posts. The deck surface was to be formed by 18 mm plywood with a waterproof membrane dressed up 150 mm on all sides. This is what the designer wanted, although waterproofing would not be a requirement of the Building Code. 4.4.2 The deck has been tiled with large reconst...

7. H Trustees Ltd v PT [2024] NZDT 512 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...situation PT finds himself in, on balance it would be unjust to allow rehearing at this late stage. Therefore, I dismiss PT’s application. Referee: Boys C DTR Date: 12 June 2024 Page 5 of 5 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...

8. [2016] NZEmpC 135 Nathan v Broadspectrum [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...while attaching the rope to the span wire, Mr Smith experienced a sensation he later described as a tingle, indicating the span wire was carrying an electric current and he may have experienced an electric shock. [7] This incident formed the basis of a disciplinary investigation that led to Mr Nathan’s dismissal. On 26 June 2013, Mr Nathan was stood down pending an independent investigation. Throughout Broadspectrum’s investigation, and in Court, Mr Nathan mainta...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 31 Zara's Turkish Ltd v Kocaturk [pdf, 357 KB]

   ...whether disclosure is to be ordered.10 In particular Privacy Principle 11(e)(iv) allows for disclosure of information where it is for proceedings before a court. However, he criticised the application as extremely broad, describing it as a blanket request for all files and communications over an extended period. [17] Are the documents sought relevant? The first three parts of the application (at [2](a)–(c) above) are about Mr Kocatürk. I begin this assessment by considering...

10. HC & KP v QT [2023] NZDT 413 (10 July 2023) [pdf, 230 KB]

    ...APPLICANT KP RESPONDENT QT The Tribunal orders: A. QT is to pay $2,610.00 to HC and KP on or before 30 July 2023, regardless of whether any work has been completed. B. The Applicant’s builder [Builder] is to perform the work as set out in the company’s quotation and scope of work dated 30 April 2023, at a time to be decided which is convenient to the company. C. The Applicants are to ensure that [Builder] gives QT 24 hours notice in writing placed...