Search Results

1. MW & NW v SL & TE [2023] NZDT 510 (20 September 2023) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...a 15% discount is appropriate, or in other words MW and NW should be reimbursed for 85% of the expense. 15. SL and TE are to pay MW and NW $2,737.31. Referee: M Wilson Date: 20 September 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 a reh...

2. Evans v Accident Compensation Corporation (Treatment Injury) [2025] NZACC 75 (8 May 2025) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...the position, excused Ms Edmonds from attending and directed the matter would be determined on the papers. Introduction [5] Mr Evans had a dental implant which he says caused gingival overgrowth and resulted in the movement of two teeth. He claims this is a treatment injury. [6] Considering the statutory criteria for a treatment injury, the issue I must determine is whether the dental implant caused the gingival overgrowth and movement. Factual background [7] The parties provi...

3. HN v D Ltd [2025] NZDT 136 (14 February 2025) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...foreseeable losses to HN for which D Ltd is liable? 15. As I have found that D Ltd used reasonable care, this question does not need to be addressed. Referee: S Simmonds Date: 14 February 2025 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 a reh...

4. BQ & DQ v I Ltd [2025] NZDT 133 (28 March 2025) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...BQ and DQ purchased a house in August 2023, intending to undertake extensive renovations. They engaged I Ltd to carry out a pre-build inspection to establish the scope and pricing for the renovations. That contract was signed on 7 September 2023, performed, and the agreed price of $6500.00 paid. 2. The renovation contract with I Ltd was signed in November 2023 and a deposit of $15,618.00 was paid – work was to commence on 12 December 2023. 3. However, on 11 December 2023, a fire e...

5. Needham v Accident Compensation Corporation (Binding effect of review decision) [2023] NZACC 146 [pdf, 271 KB]

   ...cover for an infection following hip replacement surgery on 10 August 2012. The date of the treatment injury is 21 August 2014, which is the date that Mrs Needham sought treatment for the symptoms of the treatment injury. [7] In 2015, Mrs Needham requested ACC funded assistance for the boiler system at her home. In her letter of 20 July 2015, she said she was unable to lift the 20 kilogram bags of wood pellets up to chest height to load into the hopper. She said that the costs of...

6. Wellington Standards Committee v Laglolago [2015] NZLCDT 25 [pdf, 325 KB]

   ...cover the lawyer’s work, rather than actual discussions about the nature of the claim to be made and a clear elucidation of the likely prospects of success. [56] In July of 2010 the practitioner clarified her advice concerning the proposed claims and what losses could be sought. In particular she referred to the claim for compensation for harassment which the client’s were keen on pursuing. It is clear by this stage the practitioner had done some research in this area but her...

7. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Russell [pdf, 30 KB]

   Claim No: 1240 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Auckland City Council (as assignee) Claimant And Mark Brian Russell Respondent Final Determination 14 February 2006 1. Index Para No Heading Page 1. Index 1 2. Summary of Determination 1 3. Quantification 1 2. Summary of Determination 2.1 In the Partial Determination dated 21 September 2005 I found that the Aucklan...

8. [2018] NZSSAA 33 (18 July 2018) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...question is now before the Authority pursuant to the consent order of the High Court dated 5 May 2016. That order followed a joint memorandum filed by the parties, and the joint memorandum is referred to in the order. This order of the High Court formulated the issues for the Authority in the following way: 46.2 The matter is remitted to the Authority under High Court Rule 21.14(b) and (d) for reconsideration of the question of law in accordance with Williams J’s decision outlined...

9. KD v N Ltd & HX [2023] NZDT 424 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 280 KB]

   ...to the [Address 1] premises (which he says was a high risk flooding area) and as a result of that negligence his bike got water damaged as a result of the 27 January floods. 19. In evidence, KD provided a [Address 1] Network Modelling System Performance Report dated March 2008 which was prepared for (the then) [Suburb] City Council (2008 Report). It says (in relation to the [Address 1] Business District) that this is one of the largest areas of flooding as a result of its flat topogr...

10. BS v KC & DC [2024] NZDT 489 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 243 KB]

    ...5. The parties have each raised issues about the notices served by the other in this claim. 6. KC and DC say that the notices served by BS on 5 and 12 December 2023 were not valid. They say the first valid notice (which included all of the information required by the FA) was received by them on 14 December 2023. They say that the 21 day period for serving a cross notice expired on 4 January 2024, but that BS filed this claim on 3 January 2024. They suggest this means the claim is in...