Search Results

1. NB v UJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1498 (23 April 2021) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...cars he had parked inside his yard. UJ LTD has paid the sum of $562.50 towards the cost of repairing the paintwork. 2. NB claims the sum of $9,420.00 for the cost of repairing the paint work on the car, depreciation for car, and the Tribunal filing fee. 3. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. Was UJ LTD negligent in pouring the concrete so that it splashed into an adjacent property? b. Was NB contributorily negligent by not protecting his car within his property? c. A...

2. KT v BM [2021] NZDT 1571 (22 July 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...succeed. The claim for outgoings will not be offset against the bond, due to the lack of supporting evidence. While I accept that BM may have suffered some financial loss, this resulted from a situation of his own making. 15. KT has claimed the filing fee and statutory interest. There is no jurisdiction under s 43 Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 for the Tribunal to reimburse the filing fee. The amount of statutory interest potentially payable is just over $3.00. In the circumstances...

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

   ...be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a District Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a suppo...

4. BP v YF LCRO 142 / 2010 (24 March 2011) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Passenger endorsements were reinstated. The outcome achieved for the Applicant was therefore completely successful. [9] The Practitioner had rendered accounts for the work being carried out as follows:- (in each case I record the Practitioner‟s fees exclusive of GST and disbursements):- 30 July 2008 $3,667.50 13 January 2009 $2,895.00 12 February 2009 $9,120.00 23 February 2009 $2,100.00 Total $17,782.50 [10] This was significantly in excess of the esti...

5. [2023] NZIACDT 5 - SM v KIM (15 February 2023) [pdf, 253 KB]

   ...been declined a visa, an application that had not involved Mr Kim. Mr Kim’s employee found him a job with the same employer who had offered him the job linked to the earlier declined visa. Mr Kim invoiced the employer a substantial recruitment fee, in addition to invoicing the complainant a fee for the visa. Both fees were paid by the employer. Some years later, the complainant made a complaint against Mr Kim to the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority) about the size o...

6. NT v T Ltd & L Ltd [2023] NZDT 724 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...be obtained from the Ministry of Justice, Disputes Tribunal website. The Notice must be filed at the District Court of which the Tribunal that made the decision is a division, within 20 working days of the decision having been made. There is a $200 filing fee for an appeal. You can only appeal outside of 20 working days if you have been granted an extension of time by a District Court Judge. To apply for an extension of time you must file an Interlocutory Application on Notice and a suppo...

7. [2016] NZEmpC 24 Myatt (Labour Inspector) v Pacific Appliances Limited [pdf, 90 KB]

   ...determination was issued on 11 December 2013 ordering the defendant to comply with the Notice. 1 In addition, the determination imposed a penalty of $1,500 upon the defendant and there was an order that the defendant reimburse the Labour Inspector for a filing fee of $71.56. The defendant failed to take any steps in the proceedings before the Authority. [4] In a subsequent determination dated 25 August 2014, the Authority made further compliance orders that the penalty and fili...

8. JY v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 64 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...provide a quote. [4] The applicant claims he is entitled to compensation for this poor service and seeks the cost of the repair required to bring his vehicle up to warrantable standard, $825.13, a refund of the warrant cost, $40 and the Tribunal filing fee. [5] The respondent admits providing the WOF inspection but denies any liability. [6] The respondent claims the fee of $40 is reasonable for the inspection and within the industry standard. The applicant has not provided any eviden...

9. [2016] NZEmpC 46 Ngawharau v Porirua Whanau Centre [pdf, 72 KB]

   ...at [48]. 5 Binnie v Pacific Health Ltd [2002] 1 ERNZ, 438 (CA) at [14]. 6 Health Waikato Ltd v Elmsly [2004] 1 ERNZ 172 (CA). in respect of the Authority investigation because there was no evidence that any costs, apart from the filing fee, had been incurred by the plaintiff. [7] In his submissions on this aspect of the claim, Mr Paradza stated: … In the ERA [the] plaintiff was represented by Mr Chris Moses who was his advocate. In the absence of invoices from Mr...

10. Wellington Standards Committee v Twigley [2016] NZLCDT 37 [pdf, 601 KB]

    ...deterrence was not necessary in this instance, but other than a reference to his first 15 years of practice which occurred without adverse findings against him he did not cite specific grounds for that submission. [83] We note that Mr Twigley filed references from a number of other practitioners and former employees. These would certainly support the view that, before encountering such severe financial difficulties as he did in his last few years of practice, he had been a diligen...