Search Results

1. [2023] NZEmpC 76 McMillan v Resque Corporation 20/20 Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...of the defendant company’s property, interest on the money outstanding in accordance with the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 and costs. [11] This morning Mr Johnston explained that the only sanction pursued at this hearing is a fine. A request was made, however, to preserve the application for sequestration if the Authority’s order remains unsatisfied. That request is dealt with later. [12] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer...

2. Arthur v The Proprietors of Potikirua Incorporation - Potikirua Incorporation (2019) 225 Waiariki MB 63 (225 WAR 63) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...rerenga a te kēhi nei – The case so far [7] Mr Bidois seeks full indemnity cost on the basis that: (a) The Committee of Management had failed over a period of eight months to give effect to sealed orders for succession despite the applicant’s request. (b) The applicant had exhausted all other avenues prior to lodging her application, including speaking to the Incorporation’s Chairperson personally and having her solicitor produce the relevant regulation. (c) While the Court...

3. SC v RG [2020] NZDT 1560 (4 May 2020) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...regardless of what the renovation debt may have been; I do not need to consider this second issue. Conclusion 17. For the reasons above, Mr and Mrs G must pay $14,105.05 to the entities and in the proportions set out in my order above. Other Information 18. The issuing of this order has been delayed as a result of New Zealand being placed into COVID 19 Level 4 lockdown on Thursday 19 March 2020. 19. I find it reasonable given the lockdown that just over four weeks is a...

4. BS and NE v RB Ltd [2017] NZDT 1524 (26 April 2017) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...were misled by the reassurances given to them by M that the car was sound, in particular when he emphasised that the car had a current warrant of fitness. It was true that the car had a warrant, but the evidence of the applicants was that this information was given in the context of the discussion that they wanted to travel around the South Island in the car. After the car broke down, their mechanic reported that it was inevitable that the car would break down because it had a patched r...

5. DB v FX [2018] NZDT 1489 (3 December 2018) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...losses, since he failed to get any mechanical checks done before purchase. 15. For the reasons given, FX is liable for the full amount of the claim. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 3 December 2018 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. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, yo...

6. E Ltd v M Ltd [2020] NZDT 1658 (11 November 2020) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...trees”. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 4 of 5 c. Trees from three different nurseries separated by 600km and using different soil media were equally affected for the first time on the same sites in the same year. d. There is not sufficient information to determine with any certainty the cause of causes of the problem, but a possible explanation is that challenging weather conditions during spring, combined with “the stress of heavy flowering” created an environment that ca...

7. XD v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 100 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...trading name. MC was not able to provide a phone number for the director of Q Ltd. 4. The supplier of XD’s [redacted] spa, in September 2021, was most likely Q Ltd, which was operating the business at the time. I am satisfied on the basis of the information provided that D Ltd, which currently trades as QT, did not have a contract with XD, and so has no liability under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 in relation to XD’s spa. 5. The notice of hearing was sent to Q Ltd at its r...

8. U Ltd v B Ltd (2023) NZDT 591 (14 November 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...consistent with U LTD’s comprehensive description of K’s behaviour and actions in response to their attempts to find out what was holding up the job and arranging for other parties to assist with moving things forward. 9. Based on all the information supplied by both parties, I find that U LTD’s reasonable efforts to make progress on the job by engaging another engineer to inspect the truck in early 2022 led to B LTD’s repudiation of the contract (K made it clear to U LTD that...

9. VI & BB Ltd v QN & Ors [2024] NZDT 720 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...undertaken on a good will basis, and do not consider there is sufficient evidence to support a finding that there was an oral agreement which altered the terms of the written lease. In any event, even if there were such an agreement, a failure to perform the work to an acceptable standard would not give rise to a right for VI to cancel the lease. At best VI would be entitled to some damages for any extra work she had to undertake. 16. Given my finding that there was no breach of the le...

10. D Ltd v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 769 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 155 KB]

    ...which total $18,160.80. Page 2 of 5 5. The hearing was by teleconference. Z and T represented D Ltd and H represented H Ltd. H Ltd’s insurer withdrew from the claim prior to hearing on the basis it did not provide cover on the information it had seen. 6. In considering the evidence and information the parties have provided, I need to decide: a. Whether H Ltd is in breach of an obligation regarding the painting to D Ltd; b. If so, what loss that has caused D Ltd....