Search Results

1. EI v TB [2020] NZDT 1699 (19 March 2020) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...amount claimed? [16] Having made the findings in paragraph [14], I also find that EI is not liable to pay the amount claimed. I therefore dismiss TB’s claim. Referee: P Ferguson Date: 19 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...

2. OO v SL [2024] NZDT 196 (19 January 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...sum of $3,995.92 ($4,830.00 - $834.08 reparation). Referee: DTR Unasa Date: 19 January 2024 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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 re...

3. U Ltd v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 762 (11 December 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...was of the same kind throughout the house, and J Ltd had applied an excess to each room when, if one room CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 only had been damaged, it would have been obliged to replace the entire carpet in order to ensure uniformity. It was impossible for U Ltd to establish details of how and when these events occurred, and equally impossible to pinpoint how other items of damage, including thefts, had occurred. [7] QC said that: - cl 3 of the policy stated that...

4. HRRT Statement of reply [pdf, 386 KB]

   For more information visit www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals The Human Rights Review Tribunal Page 1 For more information visit www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals HRRT 06/09 - 4 Office use only: HRRT NoStatement of Reply What is this form for? Use this form if you are a named as a defendant in a ‘Statement of Claim’ and wish to file a ‘Statement of Reply’ in response to the allegations made against you. Important Information 1. Please print in CAPITAL LETTERS 2. It is important tha...

5. Mayfair Street Units v Spargo [pdf, 323 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-101-15 and 18 BETWEEN DAVID ALFRED FRANKLIN and DIANE HOLROYD FRANKLIN – Claimants in TRI 2009- 101-15 AND NGAIRE ANN SHERWIN and HTT 2003 LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE KEREOPA WHANAU TRUST– Claimants in TRI 2009-101-18 – known as MAYFAIR STREET UNITS Claimants AND LYNN and MERLYN SPARGO First Respondents AND NORFOLK HOMES LIMITED Second Respondent AND LINDSAY MACK Third Respondent AND GIANNE MARCHE

6. Khan v Khetarpal [2015] NZIACDT 45 (24 April 2015) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...reply. The due date was Thursday 11 December 2014; she was given extensions of time through to 30 January 2015. She claimed on 17 April 2015 she had not responded due to “pressing personal commitments”, despite the Tribunal allowing the time she requested earlier; and she sought an extension to 27 April 2015. [12] The Tribunal declines the complainant’s request: [12.1] She has repeatedly failed to comply with deadlines. [12.2] She no longer supports the complaint, and accordingly...

7. KX v XM & others [2024] NZDT 869 (6 December 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...items have been fixed, and he notes where something has been fixed in those tables. 12. Further, I consider that L Ltd/I Ltd should maintain records of what remedial work they have carried out at the property and they were unable to provide any information to that effect. Therefore I consider it reasonable to rely on KX’s defect lists and updated defects lists provided in evidence. 13. I am satisfied from the evidence presented, mainly photographic evidence contained within the

8. [2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...21 December 2015, and that to proceed in any other way was “game-playing”. She also said that “the Ministry recognises email transmission as being an acceptable mode of service of documents.” [9] On 2 February 2016, as a result of a request from the Registry as to when a statement of defence would be filed, Mr McBride advised that the defendant was not aware of “service being effected to date”. [10] This resulted in Ms Sharma filing a memorandum with the Court, in w...

9. ME v KT & EN [2024] NZDT 821 (7 October 2024) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...they carried out remedial work and heard no more. • ME did not approach them about any issues until after she did the work and requested they pay her $15,000 towards the cost. • The changes ME made were because she was changing the usage form residential to commercial. • The drain cover on the driveway must have been installed in 1999, before they bought the property. • They engaged a drainlayer to move the water tank and were issued a PS3 so assumed whatever was...

10. [2014] NZEmpC 206 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 230 KB]

    ...CORKILL Introduction [1] This judgment decides two applications. The first is made by the defendant. The orders it seeks are: (a) That the remedies sought by the plaintiff in paras 55(a), (c) and (d) of his fourth amended statement of claim be dismissed on the basis that these remedies vested in the Official Assignee under s 101 of the Insolvency Act 2006 (IA), and that upon the plaintiff’s bankruptcy the Official Assignee determined that there was no merit in pursuing...