Search Results

1. ABY v ZYF [2013] NZDT 125 (17 September 2013) [pdf, 58 KB]

   ...claim is dismissed. Facts [1] The Applicant purchased a motor vehicle, a 2002 [vehicle] from the Respondent on 4 February 2011. This agreement is evidenced in writing and includes 24-month [insurer] warranty cover. [2] The Applicant claims that a term of this agreement of sale and purchase was that the Respondent would repair at its own cost any subsequent fault with the vehicle for 12 months after the sale. The Applicant further claims that the vehicle failed twice...

2. [2013] NZEmpC 18 Pathways Health Ltd v Moxon [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...psychology and social work and was employed by the plaintiff in 2005 as a registered health professional. [3] In August 2009, the plaintiff raised concerns with the defendant about her conduct. These ultimately led to the defendant receiving a formal warning in April 2010. The defendant raised a personal grievance which was lodged with the Authority. In addition to remedies for the personal grievance, the defendant also sought reimbursement of her costs of representation in the i...

3. DQ v UP [2022] NZDT 211 (9 December 2022) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...‘BS’. DQ received BS from UP on or about 3 September 2021 when he was around eight weeks of age. 2. DQ says that BS has two significant physical health issues which were diagnosed while he was still a young puppy, that is, an antebrachial limb deformity with carpal valgus in the left front leg, and double hip dysplasia. The diagnoses were provided to DQ by T Veterinary Hospital (“T Vets”), and by BX a specialist small animal surgeon from ABC University who has had two consultat...

4. Panchalingam v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2023] NZACC 196 [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...at: Wellington/Whanganui-a-tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 4 December 2023 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for weekly compensation – ss 103(2), Schedule 1, cl 32, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 19 April 2023. The Reviewer dismissed an application fo...

5. Featherby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Revocation of Cover) [2025] NZACC 110 (9 July 2025) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...4th and 5th ray amputation. Dr Wells recorded that Mr Featherby “now comes forward for skin grafting for wound coverage. Further surgery for right foot split thickness skin graft to aid wound healing”. [7] On 17 January 2024, an ACC injury claim form was filed by Dr Caitlin Orr- Walker, GP, for Mr Featherby’s accident on 15 November 2023, with the injury described as “R) foot laceration leading to non-healing foot wound and cellulitis requiring 4th and 5th ray amputation”...

6. DD Ltd & MH Ltd v EJ Ltd [2017] NZDT 1558 (6 March 2017) [pdf, 120 KB]

   ...and as a result this is the measure of damages. 22. EJ Limited is required to compensate MH Ltd in the sum of $4,092.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 5 Referee: M Wilson Date: 6 March 2017 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to app...

7. KT v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 748 (15 November 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...2. KT claims $787.95 for removal, repair, and reinstallation, costs she paid to GE to fix the bidet fault. 3. X Ltd deny the claim saying they responded to an initial enquiry from the Community Care Trust in [City] about the bidet and gave information about the estimated costs of repair. X Ltd says KT then obtained services of her own choice from GE, and X Ltd should not be responsible for those costs. X Ltd does not accept the CGA applies to repairs of this bidet given the time pa

8. Q Ltd v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 883 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...a used vehicle. 14. However at the hearing in April 2024, Mr L stated that he did not dispute the faults had arisen and that he would not have expected those parts to fail within the timeframe. He also did not dispute that the repairs were performed. Instead his position was only that the dealer had not been given the opportunity to remedy the faults. 15. In these circumstances, on balance, I find that there was a turbo and clutch fault, and that the vehicle was consequently not...

9. ST v L Ltd [2025] NZDT 149 (4 May 2025) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...difficulty in determining how damage was caused because it is unclear, if there was damage to the cars, how that damaged was caused. c. I acknowledge the invoice ST provided from [Mechanic]. However, this invoice does not provide the necessary information regarding the cause of the issues that are listed on the invoice. I accept that ST took the [Vehicle 1] to [Mechanic], but I do not have evidence that shows the car was taken there because of work completed by L Ltd (this in contras...

10. OIA-120191.pdf [pdf, 861 KB]

    Legal Services Commissioner Justice Centre I 19 Aitken Street I DX SX10125 I Wellington T 04 918 8800 I F 04 918 8820 lsc@justice.govt.nz 30 April 2025 Ref: OIA 120191 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: Legal aid data Thank you for your email of 11 March 2025, requesting legal aid data on the preparation of PAL 1 cases, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act). Specifically, you requested: Please provide for each year, for the last five years, the...