Search Results

1. IH v QM [2024] NZDT 389 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 389 APPLICANT IH RESPONDENT QM The Tribunal orders: QM is to pay IH the sum of $11,948.00 on or before 26 June 2024. Reasons: 1. QM listed a [car] on [platform] for $1.00 reserve. 2. IH bid on the auction. Shortly before the auction ended the two highest bids were removed, leaving IH the winner of the auction. 3. IH was concerned about the late removal of the two highest bids and ask...

2. NT & BT v HM [2024] NZDT 694 (20 September 2024) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...stated “[the horse] is a quality horse with loads of talent. He has competed in Showjumping to 1.15m, Level 1 Dressage and local pc events all with success…”. They considered this meant there was a high likelihood he could return to this kind of form. 2. However, NT and BT say that they have tried all means possible for [the horse] to achieve that potential and contend that HM misrepresented [the horse]’s previous level of success to them. They initially claimed a refund of $...

3. Previous consultations

   ...analysing what people told us, or where we’ve published results or decisions have been made. Recent closed consultations include: [2021] Justice Sector Long-term Insights Briefing [2021] Draft CERD Report: Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination [2021] Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing Act 2009 [2021] Incitement of Hatred and Discrimination in Aotearoa New Zealand [2021]Review of adoption laws in Aotearoa New Zealand [2021]National...

   Located in:

   1. Justice sector & policy >
   2. Have your say

4. TN & UX v N Ltd [2025] NZDT 81 (2 April 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...money had been stolen. N Ltd advised TN and UX in a meeting on 7 November 2025 that their wedding would not be able to be hosted by it, unless they paid their deposit again. The applicants were accused of somehow having facilitated the burglary and informed by N Ltd that they would not get a refund of their deposit. The procedural background to this order 2. Today was the second hearing in this matter, scheduled by way of telephone conference. The first hearing, also a telephone co...

5. Form 55 Notice of application for final charging order 2016 [docx, 24 KB]

   This editable form has been updated to reflect the new District Court Act 2016 Form 55 Notice of application for final charging order [bookmark: DLM6124023]Complete and insert the heading as set out in form 49. To the Registrar of the District Court at Choose an item. and [bookmark: _GoBack]To [name of other party to be served] This document notifies you that— 1 The judgment creditor/duly authorised agent of the judgment creditor* will apply to the District Court at [place], [date, time t...

6. OIA-102942.pdf [pdf, 2 MB]

   Justice Centre | 19 Aitken Street DX SX10088 | Wellington T 04 918 8800 | F 04 918 8820 ContactUs@justice.govt.nz | www.justice.govt.nz 13 March 2023 Our ref: OIA 102942 Tēnā koe Official Information Act request: Issuing officers Thank you for your email of 24 February 2023 in which you requested: Please provide a list of all current issuing officers (as defined under s 3 of the Search and Surveillance Act 2012) with the name, occupation and geographic loca...

7. [2013] NZEmpC 32 Piefection Foods Ltd v Hume [pdf, 133 KB]

   ...to provide, and it failed deliberately to attend the investigation meeting. Although it did provide written comments to the Authority prior to the investigation meeting in a number of emails, no substantial supporting evidence in documentary form was supplied, and no sworn evidence was submitted. [5] Piefection Foods Limited, through its director, Mr Andrew McEwan, did not act in good faith towards Mr Ian Hume. It refused to communicate with Mr Hume's representative, re...

8. MacFarlane v Hurihanganui - Whakarewarewa 2B (2015) 133 Waiariki MB 290 (133 WAR 290) [pdf, 262 KB]

   ...or before 11 September 2015 but were not submitted in time. It is noted that 9 of these owners had Rotorua addresses and would have had sufficient time to present these proxies to the Court; and (c) 9 of these 24 were also invalid due to the forms being incorrectly completed. [14] The second notice of the meeting sent to owners had the following statement: “POSTAL votes and PROXY forms must be received by the Court by 4pm Friday 11 September 2015,...” [15] The proxy for...

9. [2018] NZEnvC 126 The Wellington Company Limited v Save Erskine College Trust [pdf, 4.9 MB]

   ...practicably be re used in the Chapel; and viii how the remainder of the Reserved Area is to be developed around the Chapel. "Chapel Heritage Inventory Report" or "CHIR" is the report identifying all moveable fittings and furniture forming the fabric of the Chapel that can practicably be retained and/or refurbished. At a minimum it is to contain: (a) a title page with subject, author, client, date; (b) a statement of why the record was made; (c) an inventory of do...

10. Canterbury Westland Standards Committee v Horne [2016] NZLCDT 36 [pdf, 491 KB]

    ...as required by the rules; (ii) Collect penalty or default interest; or (iii) Take any other steps to address the defaults. (b) In breach of rule 7 of the NCR, a number of the Nominee mortgages administered by Mr Horne had been authorised by a form that did not 5 correspond with the form prescribed by the Nominee Companies Rules. There was no information about the points of difference and also involved material information being omitted from the forms used by Mr Horne; (c)...