Search Results

1. EN v SQ [2020] NZDT 1442 (27 May 2020) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...commenced in about July 2017, and it has still not been completed (as at the date of the hearing). That is about two years and ten months since the work was commenced. SQ claimed that he had asked EN a question, which he said would provide crucial information, about whether the vehicle was registered or whether the registration was suspended. He claimed that he could not complete the work without an answer to this question, because “it may not have been worthwhile doing the work”....

2. LCRO 117/2018 VR v BJ (30 August 2019) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...disputed that the money was owing. His complaint about Ms BJ concerns the firm having served a statutory demand on Mr VR’s company, and then issuing liquidation proceedings to recover the money claimed. [4] On 16 February 2016, the claimant informed (via email) Mr VR’s company of the availability of “advert features” at the cost of “$800+ GST”, plus “$270 outstanding”. 2 The claimant requested payment “in advance” if Mr VR’s company “wish[ed] to procee...

3. J Ltd v KG [2023] NZDT 75 (21 February 2023) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...itself. [8] The application is dismissed. The applicant is now prevented from pursuing any further claim against the respondent under the assigned debt. Referee: Hannan DTR Date: 21 February 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 a...

4. T Ltd v MC [2023] NZDT 614 (23 November 2023) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...accommodation arrangement is or is not a residential tenancy or boarding house arrangement. T Ltd was given until 24 July 2023 to provide confirmation from the Tenancy Tribunal as to the nature of the arrangement. 4. T Ltd did not provide any information in the Disputes Tribunal before 24 July and the matter was set down for further hearing in front of me.1 DI advised at the second hearing that he had contacted Tenancy Services after the previous hearing and was told this was not a mat...

5. B Ltd v OQ & ST [2024] NZDT 15 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 5. At the hearing on 12 September 2023 KS said he believed he had evidence of the acknowledgement of the debt by OQ. OQ denied there had been any such acknowledgement. The matter was adjourned to allow KS to respond with further information and / or submissions as to whether the claim is time barred in terms of sections 11 and 47 of the Act. 6. The matter was called to be continued today by teleconference. There was no attendance by KS as there w...

6. Fast Dispute Resolution - Consultation on a new statutory adjudication framework [pdf, 665 KB]

   .................................................................................... 13 Voluntary participation ..................................................................................................... 14 Setting a threshold for payment claims ............................................................................ 14 Cross-border disputes ..................................................................................................... 15 Theme 2: Who should provide adj...

7. NZ Private Prosecution Service Ltd v Key (Strike-Out Application) [2015] NZHRRT 48 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...affidavit sworn on 9 June 2015 Mr McCready deposed that on 29 April 2015, at a time when NZPPSL was endeavouring to persuade the District Court to accept the private prosecution brought by NZPPSL against the defendant, he had contacted Unite Union requesting Ms Bailey’s contact details but had been refused. He had subsequently served Ms Bailey with all documents filed in the Tribunal by emailing them to Unite Union. There had been no response with the result Mr McCready was unsure whe...

8. MT & Anor v NK & Ors [2024] NZDT 798 (12 November 2024) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: The claim by MT and QT against all four Respondents is dismissed. Reasons Background and identification of parties 1. The Applicants (MT and QT) entered into a contract (“the agreement”) on the standard ADLS form to purchase the property at [address] from the First and Second Respondents (“NK and OK”) on 28 July 2023. The agreement was a secondary (back-up) contract with there being an existing contract on the property. The agreement was uncondit...

9. BE & SI v CB [2021] NZDT 1713 (17 December 2021) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...12-foot run-down caravan from CB for $1800.00 (initially for storing materials they were using for renovation of another caravan and with the later intention of doing-up and on-selling). They had previously purchased a 15-foot caravan from CB in May and formed a friendship – all parties were living in [City 1] at that time. BE and SI moved to [City 2] in early October 2021, having arranged with their landlord before they left for CB to take over their tenancy. 2. When the 12-foot car...

10. TC v TB [2023] NZDT 575 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

    ...issuing the invoice. 4. Having carefully considered all the evidence I find TC’s claim is dismissed and TC is to pay TB the $195.50 as ordered. Referee: P McKinstry Date: 7 November 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...