Search Results

1. ACB v ZYC and ZYB [2010] NZDT 77 (9 November 2010) [pdf, 79 KB]

   ...Date of Order: 9 November 2010 Referee: Referee C Smith ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Respondents pay the Applicant the sum of $2,534.37 directly within 21 days of today’s date. The counterclaim is dismissed due to failure of proof. Facts [1] The material facts are that the parties are neighbours. The Applicant, ACB, has brought a claim under the Fencing Act 1978 requesting that the boundary fence between her and the...

2. CEIT practice notes: COVID-19 [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...court of law; • require the applicant or another party to provide documents or other information relating to the application within any reasonable period that the Chair may, from time to time, specify; • make the indicative ruling without the requested documents should they not be supplied within the specified time; • issue directions to accompany the indicative ruling setting the claim down for hearing; or • assign the hearing of the claim to any other member who has not...

3. [2016] NZSSAA 055 (16 June 2016) [pdf, 22 KB]

   ...October 2004 to November 2005. [5] Following the grant of New Zealand Superannuation, the appellant was requested to make an application for a retirement benefit to the United States Social Security Administration. The Ministry has made a number of requests to the appellant to complete an application for a United States benefit but the appellant has declined to do so. [6] The appellant seeks to defer making an application for a retirement benefit from the United States Social Security...

4. EU v NO [2020] NZDT 1340 (16 March 2020) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...If so, is he liable to refund EU the deposit he paid? 7. Under s43(3)(e) of the FTA I am ordering NO to refund the money EU paid as a deposit – that is, $12,800.00. Referee: C ter Haar Date: 16 March 2020 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...

5. TQ v IU [2023] NZDT 117 (1 March 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...unjust enrichment, my finding is that it would be unjust if IU was to retain the benefit of that repair work at TQ’s expense. 16. IU is to pay TQ $983.49. Referee: Nicholas Blake Date: 1 March 2023 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...

6. SM v BQ [2023] NZDT 143 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...because once an order is made by the court the debt is crystallised. 6. Accordingly, BQ is to pay SM the amount of $12,035.67 as ordered. Referee: P McKinstry Date: 8 June 2023 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 2 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...

7. FD Ltd v UD [2023] NZDT 121 (3 March 2023) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...the car loan would become payable in full, since instalments could no longer be deducted from his pay. I therefore find that UD must pay $3,720.00 to FD Ltd. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 3 March 2023 Page 2 of 2 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...

8. QD v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 62 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...agreements relating to refund of the deposit in the event that the project didn’t proceed. 5. Although deposits can usually be assumed to be non-refundable, particularly when their purpose is to secure a booking or hold certain dates for work to be performed, or allow for pre-ordering of materials or equipment, there is no suggestion or evidence that there was any specific disadvantage or cost to B Ltd in this case when the project was cancelled. The cancellation occurred some 2-3 mo...

9. Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Analysis of Replacement Regimes [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...the 2004 Act will be repealed and replaced by a new regime: Cabinet has not made this decision. It is possible to retain or amend the 2004 Act or repeal it and not replace it; is written with a particular purpose in mind: its purpose is to inform preliminary decisions in order for a preferred option to be taken out for public consultation. This consultation will ask fundamental policy questions (e.g. should customary interests be tested?). A final decision on the preferred option...

10. Review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 Post Consultation Decisions [pdf, 993 KB]

    ...foreshore and seabed. 2. This is the second RIS prepared in relation to the Review of the 2004 Act. The first RIS analysed the preliminary policy options for replacing the 2004 Act as one possible outcome of the Review. Its purpose was to inform Ministerial decisions on the Government’s preferred policy option which was set out in a public discussion document. This RIS only briefly addresses the status quo, problem definition and objective of the Review, which were covered in mor...