Search Results

1. Peni v Pahi — Tiroa E Block and Te Hape B Block (2010) 1 Waikato Maniapoto MB 25 (1 WMN 25) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...was at a gross undervalue, and the process in selling the property was flawed and not best practice; c) Whether the establishment of the position of Executive Trustee was ill conceived and carried out in a flawed manner and in contravention of clause 40(e) of the Trust Order. Background Sale of Trust Property [3] Tiroa E and Te Hape B Trusts owned a farm property at Puketawai Road, Otorohanga (“the farm”). The farm was general land and did not form part of the corpus land...

2. [2020] NZEnvC 217 Trojan Holdings Limited v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 472 KB]

   ...Appellants QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondent Court: Environment Judge J J M Hassan Hearing: In Chambers at Christchurch Date of Decision: 21 December 2020 Date of Issue: 21 December 2020 DECISION AS TO COSTS A: Under s285, RMA 1, Queenstown Lakes District Council is ordered to pay to Trojan Holdings Limited and Skyline Enterprises Limited jointly costs of $40,000. B: Under s286, RMA, this order may be filed in the District Court at Queenstown for enforcement

3. AER & AES v ZVD Ltd & ZVC [2013] NZDT 259 (8 August 2013) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...acknowledged he had received his copy of the policy from TB before the flood. I have considered whether AER could reasonably have realised on reading the policy that the belongings were not insured at Property A. I have considered Section 1, Clause 1 “What Your Are Covered For?” and Section 3, Clause 6 “What We Don’t Cover” in particular. Not unreasonably, AER considered the Property A to be his home and Property B to be his home. Bearing in mind that AER had already bee...

4. 2021-07-05 TAs MOC options for relief.pdf [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...concerning operating procedures administered through a water allocation committee that exists for the catchment; and (f) Within existing water permit volume and rate limits the extent to which there is a need to provide for population growth under clause (d)(ii) above; and (g) Any other conditions on the expiring permit to be replaced, where those matters are not otherwise addressed by the entry conditions of this rule or matters of discretion ; and (h) Review conditions; an...

5. D Ltd v EB Ltd [2019] NZDT 1514 (13 August 2019) [pdf, 130 KB]

   ...if that had been the intention of the parties at the time the contract was entered into, it is more likely than not that wording making that clear would have been included in the contract. [15] In addition, it is noted that although the relevant clause in the contract, (clause 4.2), provides for the fee charged by EB Ltd to increase with the introduction of additional supported computers, there is CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 no corresponding provision for the fee to be reduc...

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

   ...instructions or goals. It is not clear anything was agreed concerning the purpose of the services. What is the meaning of “No win, no fee? [7] The approach to contractual interpretation in the New Zealand courts includes: a. A contractual clause will firstly be interpreted objectively by construing it according to its natural and ordinary meaning. It involves reading a clause in the context of the whole document, or other documents that form part of the same contract. b. Th...

7. CU Ltd v ZS & HC Ltd [2023] NZDT 588 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 272 KB]

   Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 588 APPLICANT CU Ltd RESPONDENT ZS SECOND RESPONDENT HC Ltd The Tribunal orders: ZS & HC Ltd is to pay CU Ltd the sum of $10,684.41 in full, on or before 5pm Friday 22 December 2023. Reasons: 1. ZS director of HC Ltd (the Respondents) purchased products and services from CU Ltd in February 2022 to May 2022 valued at $11,817.52, and

8. ND Ltd v TS Ltd [2023] NZDT 101 (3 April 2023). [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...$2,040.00 bond 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Is TS Ltd entitled to retain the bond of $2,040.00 paid by ND Ltd? b. If not, is BG Ltd liable to pay ND Ltd the bond ND Ltd has paid TS Ltd? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 5. There were three hearings of this claim, all held by teleconference. The first hearing was adjourned because TS Ltd did not attend and when I rang BG Ltd, they had been unaware that the hearing was going ahead. 6. All parties attended the...

9. KH v EI [2024] NZDT 380 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...experienced the obstruction and could not stop. 11. EI said that the police concluded that it was an unavoidable accident and no one was charged. 12. EI referred the Tribunal to the Land Transport (Road User) Rules 2014, (the Road User Rules), clause 5.9(4) which specifies following distances and pointed out that he was well outside the minimum distance. 13. EI referred to the Road User Rules, clause 6.3(1) which outlines restrictions on stopping a vehicle on any part of the ro...

10. B Ltd v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 564 (9 August 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

    ...is” basis; The purchaser has fully inspected the Vehicle and purchases same not on basis of any representation or warranty made by the Vendor other than contained in Clause 4 … (reference to odometer being accurate) 7. TT, says that these clauses exclude the CGA. 8. Mr T says that the CGA does apply, and he purchased the van from a motor vehicle dealer so that he would have the protection of the CGA. 9. I find that the CGA does apply to the sale of the van. The CGA provide...