Search Results

1. Parker v Accident Compensation Corporation (Claims Process) [2024] NZACC 198 (6 December 2024) [pdf, 159 KB]

   ...November 2024 Held at: Wellington by AVL Appearances: S Winter for the Appellant P McBride for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 6 December 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claims process - s 134(1), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 28 February 2023. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review for alleged unreasonable...

2. Fisher v Foster (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 623 KB]

   ...and financial resources. It is therefore essential that the Tribunal does not use its discretion to award costs in a manner which might deter lay litigants (and, for that matter, those represented by a lawyer) from the inexpensive and accessible form of justice which is the hallmark and strength of a tribunal. Simply expressed, the Tribunal must preserve meaningful access to justice. Preserving access to justice [10] The Tribunal sees a range of litigants and types of cases. In a si...

3. KQ v LJ [2025] NZDT 93 (11 May 2025) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...property, south of [Town]. KQ says it became immediately apparent the pony that arrived was not a pony suitable for a child because [pony] has not been able to be ridden since her arrival and is a danger to anyone who approaches her. 2. KQ claims $8,452.00 saying the pony’s characteristics were clearly misrepresented to him. He has said he wishes to return [pony], and the sum claimed therefore includes the purchase price; the initial freight; and estimated return freight. 3...

4. LCRO 109/2024 BD and GD v RJ (19 September 2025) [pdf, 293 KB]

   ...27 August 2012. I infer that this was the date the applicants signed their offer to purchase. It is common ground that they did so before engaging with the firm, although the fact that the above clause was inserted indicates that they must have informed the real estate agent that the firm would be acting for them. The backing sheet of the agreement also named the firm as the lawyers acting for both parties. [6] The applicants instructed the firm to act for them on the purchase. The...

5. [2011] NZEmpC 131 Yang v L E Builders Ltd [pdf, 66 KB]

   ...for L E Builders Limited Judgment: 18 October 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] After hearing a full and excellent argument from both counsel, in support of and in opposition to the plaintiff’s application to join the former sole director of the defendant company Lawrence Leong Eng Loo as a party, I determined that the most appropriate course was to adjourn the application until the substantive challenge has been disposed of. The following are my reason...

6. YT v ED Ltd [2016] NZDT 1444 (18 August 2016) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...$9,342.50 paid to ED. ED counterclaims that it is not liable to refund the deposit, but rather that Mr T owes ED a further $9,342.50 for the second preliminary deposit. Since the total sum in dispute is $18,685.00, the parties have signed the required form agreeing to extend the financial limit of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to $20,000.00. 6. The issues to be determined are: a) Was approval given for the loan? If conditional, were all conditions met? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 o...

7. DTD v TS [2021] NZDT 1371 (6 April 2021) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1371 APPLICANT DTD Ltd RESPONDENT TS The Tribunal orders: The claim by DTD Ltd is dismissed. Reasons [1] NT is an employment advocate trading as DTD Ltd. She was formerly employed by DT NZ Ltd. DT Ltd is a franchise of DT NZ Ltd. On the 20 July 2020 TS signed an authorisation for DTD Ltd to act as her employment consultant in relation to a dispute with her former employer. There was no written contract...

8. ND v LB Ltd [2023] NZDT 458 (15 August 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...This is for the following reasons: a. I understand that ND has paid around $3,200.00 in total to LB Ltd. b. I find that LB Ltd is entitled to retain $1,000.00 being a pragmatic assessment of the price for the part of the services that it performed competently, being the measurement and the majority of the installation of the shade cloth. c. I advised the parties during the hearing that I am unable to award ND more than the amount claimed by him on his application form. This i...

9. UC v OI and others [2023] NZDT 759 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...premises for her hair salon business. At some point the Trust decided to replace the roof rather than to continue trying to repair it. 3. On 31 October 2022, UC contacted Trustee OI and advised the roof had leaked over the weekend. UC requested information about the roofing work as she had installed ceiling panels and lighting was about to be installed. UC also advised she was planning to lay laminate flooring the next weekend. 4. On 3 November 2022, OI advised UC that the roof work...

10. D Ltd v US [2025] NZDT 127 (19 March 2025) [pdf, 184 KB]

    ...that the consumer is not liable to pay more than a reasonable price for the services. However, this guarantee only applies where the price for the services is not determined by the contract. In this case I am satisfied that the contract, which was formed when US accepted D Ltd’s estimate for the work, provided that the price for the work would be between $15,000.00 and $27,000.00. For this reason, I find that the guarantee as to price in the CGA is not relevant in this case. 12. The...