Search Results

1. M Ltd v KC [2023] NZDT 26 (2 February 2023) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...the Tribunal has the onus of proving his or her claim/counterclaim on the civil standard of proof which is the balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). I would like to reassure the parties that I have considered all the information and evidence presented by them when making my determination on the issues, but this order only refers to essential evidence and information material to the issues and is not intended to be a full record of the hearings or of the infor...

2. SH v BU [2024] NZDT 552 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...full but was not sent the phone. See section 35 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017. 10. Therefore, BU is to pay SH $1,748.34 by Wednesday 13 August 2024. Referee: C Price Date: 24 July 2024 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 reh...

3. LCRO 40/2021 PT v UT and RL t/a Law Firm A (28 April 2022) [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...Mr HT. [3] Mr HT set up a trust, the CTG Trust (“the trust”). At the time the trust was established (2005), Mr HT was a client of a [City A] based law firm, [Law Firm B]. 2 [4] In 2014, [Law Firm B] merged with the firm [Law Firm C], to form the firm [Law Firm A] ([LAW FIRM A]). [5] In December 2011, Mr HT had executed his last will and testament. Mr HT’s will appointed Mrs YW (his wife) as a discretionary beneficiary of his trust. [6] [LAW FIRM A] acted for Mr SZ and...

4. X Ltd v DN [2023] NZDT 282 (24 July 2023) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...the Tribunal on 23 December 2022, the claim for the repair was made within the six year limitation period. DN is required to pay this amount, which is $1,955.00. Referee: M Wilson Date: 24 July 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 rehe...

5. EZ v LH [2021] NZDT 1585 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...reasonable opportunity to review those submissions and respond to them. 19. For these reasons LH’s counterclaim against EZ is also dismissed. Referee: K. Armstrong Date: 6 July 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 r...

6. NS v TN & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 544 (4 July 2024) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...His comment is a general statement and there is no evidence of this. In any event I must consider the specific claim, not whether such things generally happen. 12. However, this does not exonerate TN. His mistake was that he had different platforms and didn’t realise he accepted the booking until 30 November. I note moneys are held with C Ltd not the host until moneys are released by C Ltd to the host around the time of the client’s stay. 13. Accordingly, TN breached s28 o...

7. Te Manutukutuku Issue 37 [pdf, 5.7 MB]

   Haralua/Pipiri 1996 Number 37 May/ June 1996 Taranaki claims could be largest T he Taranaki claims, grouped to­ gether, 'could be the largest in the country', according to the interim Taranaki report. The report states that 'there may be no others where as many Treaty breaches had equivalent force and effect over a comparable time.' The Tribunal estimates the area of lands wrongfully expropriated at just under two million acres. The report also states that the

8. TT v HQ and KG [2020] NZDT 1700 (11 March 2020) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...claimed do not fall within the category of costs which the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award. For that reason, I dismiss the counterclaim brought by the Trust. Referee: P Ferguson Date: 11 March 2020 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...

9. BB v KU [2023] NZDT 408 (26 July 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...when the table had a TV on it; and a valuation of the table and 6 chairs dated 5 April 2023, which is after the tabletop was refinished. 8. BB has not re-submitted her prior valuation evidence that she had inexplicably redacted the relevant information from. 9. BB claims she obtained 2 remedial quotes but has not submitted either. It is unclear as to when the quotes were obtained as the table was delivered Sunday the 26 February and collected by the furniture maker for refinishing...

10. QE & TE v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 878 (29 August 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

    ...that principle only applies between the exact same parties. As G Ltd was not a party to the District Court proceedings this rule does not prevent QE and TE from bringing this claim before the Tribunal. 8. QE and TE say that section 17 of the Law Reform Act 1936 means they are entitled to claim against G Ltd as the section allows a person to bring a claim against a second joint tortfeasor even if the person has secured judgment against the first joint tortfeasor (section 17(1)). Section...