Search Results

1. Hall v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...whereas Mr Medricky and Mr Hadley were working in the construction industry at the relevant time therefore I prefer their evidence on this issue. [55] Mr Gillingham said that it was not common practice in 2000/2001 for a Council officer to request a Producer Statement from a roofer. He accepted that this placed more emphasis on the Council inspections. The Council was reasonably required to inspect an element of construction as crucial as the roof when it did not 21...

2. TM v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 228 (14 April 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...this question, which had not been apparent to either of them prior to the hearing. Given they were not legally represented, that is unsurprising and not a criticism. TM thought it was important to protect New Zealand consumers from misleading information such as that in B Ltd’s baggage policy. He further said that if the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, he might be able to make a claim in [Country 1] following his return to [International city 1] later this year. NL for B Ltd was un...

3. Crosswell v Auckland City Council [pdf, 92 KB]

   ........................................................... [7] PURCHASE OF HOUSE BY CLAIMANTS .................................................. [11] PROPERTY TRANSFERRED FROM CLAIMANTS TO TRUST.................. [16] Additional Repairs after Trust Formed................................................. [20] Attempted Sale of the Property ........................................................... [23] THE CLAIMANTS’ CLAIM .................................................................

4. Te Manutukutuku Issue 32 [pdf, 5.1 MB]

   ...• • • • • • • • • • • • • Concerns About Resource Allocation Available for Claims Concerns have been raised about the level of resources available to the Waitangi Tribunal for the hearing of claims. A large number of requests have been made for early and urgent funding and the Tribunal has been criticised when it has proceeded with other cases. In a recent memorandum concern­ ing the Ngai Tahu claim, Tribunal chairperson, Chief Judge Edward Durie p...

5. B Ltd v UT & QT [2024] NZDT 714 (28 August 2024) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...Whether there was a legally binding contract between the parties that required UT and QT to pay B Ltd $17,000.00? 3. The common law of contract allows parties to enter into contracts that are legally binding. A contract can be written or formed verbally or inferred from the parties’ conduct. 4. B Ltd said that they had signed a settlement agreement with UT and QT in early 2024 and they had agreed to pay the sum of $17,000.00 to them as part of a full and final settlement

6. IM v KE [2024] NZDT 301 (8 May 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...ACA). Therefore the Tribunal cannot hear a claim for loss of wages arising out of the second incident in the cafe where KE’s dog pulled out of IM’s hand. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 8 May 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...

7. AAP v ZZM [2012] NZDT 38 (15 November 2012) [pdf, 53 KB]

   ...AAP APPLICANT AND ZZM RESPONDENT Date of Order: 15 November 2012 Referee: Referee Cheyne ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is struck out. Facts [1] AAP has no presence in New Zealand but is an Australian registered company that works in Australia. ZZM is a New Zealand registered company based in Christchurch with clients in Australia. ZZM contrac...

8. DS v XT & UT [2023] NZDT 733 (17 December 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...properties. While DS was overseas XT pruned, or caused to be pruned, a 6m high Pohutukawa tree on DS’s property, destroyed a clematis growing on it and damaged a trellis situated on top of the fence. DS alleges this was done without her consent or request while XT states that DS requested the service which was provided through his company, S Ltd. DS now claims for damages being an arborist’s report, 2/3 the value of the tree, remedial pruning, the value of the clematis, the broken tr...

9. Lochead-MacMillan v Nimble Financial Services Group Limited [2024] NZHRRT 25 [pdf, 214 KB]

   DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 [1] Nimble Financial Services Group Limited (NFSG) provided Mr Lochead-MacMillan with financial services regarding a property he was purchasing. Mr Lochead-MacMillan subsequently made an information privacy request to NFSG to access his personal information that it held. 1This decision is to be cited as Lochead-MacMillan v Nimble Financial Services Group Limited [2024] NZHRRT 25. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2024] NZHRRT 25 I TE TARAIPIUN...

10. Wong-Kam v Barron [2014] NZWHT Auckland 3 [pdf, 76 KB]

    ...meritless allegations made by Ms Barron it is useful to look at the procedural history of Mr Wong-Kam’s involvement in this claim. Mr Wong-Kam was joined to the claim after Ms Barron and the Auckland Council both applied to join him. The only information provided by Ms Barron at the time was: There was considerable concern during the pouring of the ground floor concrete. At the time of the pouring the lower level of the ground floor there was extra water added to the mix a...