Search Results

1. TM v DD [2019] NZDT 1469 (18 November 2019) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...carries the burden of satisfying me her version is correct. As both could equally be correct, TM has not discharged the burden of satisfying me that T had arthritis at time of sale. 18. At the time of discussing the sale and purchase of T, DD informed TM that T had a history of osteochondrosis (“OCD”) and he had the potential to develop arthritis at an earlier age. TM was aware of this and chose to go ahead with the sale. 19. DD made a statement about her belief about the futu...

2. SJ & NY v XT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1644 (6 October 2021) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...15. For these reasons SJ and NY are not liable to pay XT Ltd the amount of $289.80, being the sum overestimated for water use between February and October 2020. Referee: K Rendall Date: 6 October 2021 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 rehe...

3. SH v TS [2022] NZDT 110 (2 September 2022) [pdf, 123 KB]

   ...therefore entitled to be refunded his purchase price and have TS collect the vehicle. An order is therefore made to that effect. Referee: K Cowie DTR Date: 2 September 2022 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...

4. XB v KI [2022] NZDT 226 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...the service records available to XB. 25. Had XB taken the time to look over the service documents, he would have been aware that the DPF light had been on the day before, a static regeneration done, and the fault code cleared. All of that information was made available to XB at the time of test drive and sale. 26. The evidence does not satisfy me that the car had mechanical issues at the time of sale. A DPF light was on the day before, work was done by a Mazda dealer, and the fa...

5. D Ltd & KN & PB v QD [2021] NZDT 1622 (28 July 2021) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...into his property. It did not provide security or privacy. He and his wife had wanted the hedge removed, and a paling fence erected in its place. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 [3] In about September 2020, PB had approached the Ds to inform them that she and her husband wished to remove an elm tree that was in the boundary area, and to remove the hedge and replace it with a paling fence. The Ds indicated that they did not agree with this proposal. [4] In November 2020, KN ha...

6. UG v NI & II [2022] NZDT 50 (24 May 2022) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...her own. 9. The second receipt is different in style from the first receipt (although both are written on pages from receipt books) – the receipt numbers are not in the same sequence and the appearance of the pages are different in terms of formatting of the typed content and size. Of course NI could have been using different receipt books but it is up to UG to prove that she made the disputed payment of $10,000.00 to NI. In the absence of a signed receipt, an identical style of r...

7. LT v NC [2024] NZDT 25 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...through because of the issues with this car. However, LT has not satisfied me that his claim should succeed. 26. The claim is dismissed. Referee: P Byrne Date: 22 February 2024 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...

8. Staniland v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims Process) [2023] NZACC 76 [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...based on the three months he had been employed by Boden Pipe Limited. [5] In 2005, Mr Staniland moved to Australia, and, on 24 August 2005, the Corporation issued a non-compliance decision. [6] In 2012, Mr Staniland returned to New Zealand and requested that the Corporation reinstate his weekly compensation. [7] Weekly compensation was initially declined but was reinstated in 2018. Mr Staniland’s weekly compensation was reinstated at the previously paid rate up to 2005. [8]...

9. Gibson v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims process jurisdiction) [2024] NZACC 165 (22 October 2024) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...sum and taxed in the year he received it, not the year to which the payment related. This meant that the entire payment would be included in Mr Gibson’s taxable income for the 2023-24 tax year. The Corporation’s letter enclosed an ACC1566 form for Mr Gibson to advise his selected tax code for the payment. The form stipulated: Weekly compensation is taxed in the year in which you receive it, not the year to which the payment relates. This means the payment shown above will be...

10. TQ v WT Ltd & OQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 294 (29 November 2022) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...instance my finding is that neither WT Ltd nor OQ Ltd breached any legal duty owed to TQ. 34. Therefore, the claim must be dismissed. Referee: Nicholas Blake Date: 29 November 2022 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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...