Search Results

1. [2017] NZEmpC 101 Nath v Advance International Cleaning Systems (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...the Authority is required to dispose of problems and disputes promptly and without undue regard to technicalities. Consequently, when electing a non de novo challenge, careful attention should be given to the issue as to whether any additional information should be before the Court beyond that which is apparent from the determination under challenge. (emphasis added) [10] The challenge rights in s 179 have given rise to ongoing issues and confusion, particularly in circumstances...

2. C Ltd v KQ [2022] NZDT 1 (14 March 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...a house she was selling. Unfortunately goods supplied for the purpose were stolen during the staging. C LTD lodged a claim with their insurer. The insurance payment to C LTD was $15,941.92 after the deduction of the $2,500.00 excess. C LTD requested KQ to pay the excess, but she declined. The claim is for the $2,500.00 excess to be paid by KQ. 2. C LTD provided a quote for the staging contract and is relying on the ‘Terms’ supplied with that quote. The last term states...

3. TN v PO Ltd [2023] NZDT 570 (16 November 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...on the companies’ genuine website alerting users to the fraudulent use of the company names on [social media] by person/s unknown. 3. The only evidence about who TN might actually have been dealing with through [online marketplace] is in the form of a photograph sent to TN by the seller, of a man holding his photo ID drivers’ license next to his face. The man on the drivers’ license and the man in the photograph sent with the license appear to be the same person, but of course it...

4. Stock v Morris - Wainui 2D2B (2012) 41 Taitokerau MB 121 (41 TTK 121) [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...Introduction [1] This judgment concerns an application under s 18(1)(a) of Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 (“the Act”) to determine ownership of a cottage on Māori freehold land. It is a contest between Mariao Stock, an owner in the land, and her former partner, Rex Morris, a non-owner. Mariao claims ownership of the cottage and is supported by her fellow owners. Rex paid for the construction of the cottage and claims a monetary interest. There is no real evidential dispute....

5. SX v Q Ltd & TY [2024] NZDT 239 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...management company but Q Ltd repeatedly failed/refused to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TY was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing d...

6. LN & TN v TT Ltd [2024] NZDT 152 (1 March 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...5. The Applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision. Whether the service was

7. CK & NK v BG & HG [2023] NZDT 40 (19 October 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...and NK’s objections, I joined HG as a second respondent, with BG and HG’s consent and at their request. 3. The parties both owned flats next door to each other that were the subject of a cross-lease. CK and NK proposed to BG and HG that they formally update the cross-lease situation to improve the situation for buyers, as CK and NK’s were selling their flat, to which BG and HG agreed. CK and NK said BG and HG agreed to pay half the cost of legal and surveying and other fees invo...

8. KQ v UN [2023] NZDT 127 (10 May 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...factor is the respondent’s ‘offer’ of a refund subject to this dog being returned, and re-homed. That is something the applicant rejects (he wants to keep the dog, but get his money back) obviously because of the emotional attachment that has formed. When a good supplied is an animal, the blunt, possibly even harsh, reality is that it is open to the owner of that good to, so to speak, draw a line under the prospect of continuing costs. If an owner of an animal chooses not to do that,...

9. KA v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 297 (31 July 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...cosmetic work. However, the parties had in fact reached an agreement about price, and KA had already received the report, by the time that he paid the $2,500.00. PI had agreed to do his best to ‘tidy up’ the cosmetic issues, but PI had already informed KA that he would not put that commitment in writing because it would not be possible to accurately state what standard L Ltd was obliged to bring the vehicle to. d. It is not proven that PI ‘pressured’ KA into paying the depo...

10. NS v BX [2024] NZDT 787 (14 August 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

    ...sale, and as reflected in the sale price negotiated/ accepted… Both parties agree that BX did provide NS with a copy of the invoice from [Mechanic 1] who carried out the gear box replacement. However, the parties disagreed on whether NS was informed prior to the purchase that the car had been returned to [Mechanic 1] for a period of five months due to issues with the gear box. BX admitted during the hearing, that [Mechanic 1] advised him that during the five month period the gear b...