Search Results

1. BQ v EI [2024] NZDT 427 (20 April 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...recover the $4,279.80 spent on repairing the head gasket. The buyer did not have evidence of other costs to hand, so the sum awarded is $4,279.80. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 20 April 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...

2. BT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 574 (30 July 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...hear that the $14,000.00 plus $1000.00 payment is still available and agreed to receive that – that has been recorded as a settlement agreement of the Tribunal. Referee Perfect Date: 30 July 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 r...

3. NQ v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 598 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...brake-checking. Given that this practice is inherently dangerous and that it followed a tight lane change, I find that NQ is fully liable for causing the collision. Referee Perfect Date: 9 August 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 reh...

4. SU v KU [2024] NZDT 596 (10 September 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...consider. 6. KU says that there has never been any discussion of the table being returned to SU, that he has been allowed to use it since he went flatting in September 2017 and that he was given the table by his parents in April 2022. SU’s former wife and KU’s mother, CU stated in a text message sent on 6 June 2023 that the table was gifted to KU in April 2022 upon her separation with SU. 7. As the applicant, SU is required to prove his case on the balance of probabilities....

5. Erwood v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 92 [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...was vit (vital) by cotton bud application and Mr Erwood had refused consent for percussing the tooth or diagnostic PA – other aids to determine the status of the nerve of the tooth. Apologised to Mr Erwood and wrote the explanatory note he requested for him. [5] Dr Jackson’s handwritten letter to Mr Erwood stated: Miracold is a propane/butane/hexane mix. Ordinarily it should be sprayed onto a cotton palette and touched on the tooth. It is dangerous to spray directly into...

6. Options for resolving remaining Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance disputes [pdf, 384 KB]

   ...establishing an arbitration tribunal with an inquisitorial focus as an alternative pathway for claimants, EQC and insurers to resolve disputes. It states: 36.1. Principles by which the tribunal will operate include: • Fast track: no delays at request of insurance companies; • Decide claims based on equity and good conscience; • Allow compensation for distress caused by undue delay by insurers; 36.2. Claimants will face no costs to access the tribunal and the adjudicator will a...

7. Matchitt v Whangara B20 Incorporation - Whangara B20 (2006) 168 Gisborne MB 126 (168 GIS 126) [pdf, 486 KB]

   ...Finally, the evidence for the committee was that the house was uninhabitable, derelict and unsafe for occupancy so they moved to stop habitation on 18 March 2005. It was Dr Te Momo's evidence that the state of the homestead was the ground for requesting that the Matchitts vacate the property on 23 March 2005. The Court noted the committee did not have before it a professional repOlt when they concluded that the house was uninhabitable. A further letter to vacate was issued on 6 May 2...

8. Langston v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims process) [2024] NZACC 93 (30 May 2024) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...a decision has been made can there be a right of review and if no right of review exists then s133(5) has no application. ... The substance [of the communication in question] has to be analysed.” … [47] … merely administrative issues and requests, do not amount to a ‘decision’ within the meaning of s.6 of the legislation. Whether a ‘decision’ has been made needs to be determined in the factual context and circumstances. [25] In Scoullar,4 Beattie DCJ stated: [16] I...

9. Tully v Yerman [2012] NZIACDT 19 (9 May 2012) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...Ms Yerman replied by email to Ms Tully, and indicated she needed the appeal form to be signed and some other matters, and would proceed with preparing the appeal that weekend. [10.10] 15 April 2010 A person in Ms Yerman’s office sent an email requesting some documentation from Ms Tully so the appeal could be prepared. [10.11] 20 April 2010 Ms Tully delivered the material requested in the 15 April 2010 email, including signing the appeal form, and paid the fee to lodge the appeal

10. Options for resolving remaining Canterbury earthquakes insurance disputes [pdf, 371 KB]

    ...establishing an arbitration tribunal with an inquisitorial focus as an alternative pathway for claimants, EQC and insurers to resolve disputes. It states: 36.1. Principles by which the tribunal will operate include: • Fast track: no delays at request of insurance companies; • Decide claims based on equity and good conscience; • Allow compensation for distress caused by undue delay by insurers; 36.2. Claimants will face no costs to access the tribunal and the adjudicator will a...