Search Results

1. Further memorandum in respect of Strike Out Application of Guardians of the Bay and Hue te Haka (16 November 18) [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...affidavit of Ms Weeber; (b) affidavit of Dr Rotmann; and (c) affidavit of Mr Shanks. 2. The latter is being, or is to be, filed by counsel for the Surfbreak Protection Society Inc in these proceedings. I understand it may be filed in final form but not yet affirmed, given timing constraints. 3. The affidavits of Ms Weeber and Dr Rotmann have also been filed directly with the Court by the deponents, again, given timing and logistical constraints. It is understood that service...

2. LO v BH Ltd [2019] NZDT 1555 (5 August 2019) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...suite because the items came together initially as one suite, that is, the same contract. Conclusion 16. For the reasons above, BH Ltd must pay LO $2,700.00. Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 5 August 2019 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to ap...

3. LN v JH Ltd [2022] NZDT 16 (18 February 2022) [pdf, 150 KB]

   ...Act 1988). Presuming the LN was aware of this, I suppose his purpose was not so much about the money as about having his complaints properly heard. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 18 February 2022 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 rehe...

4. QH v TU Ltd [2022] NZDT 12 (22 March 2022) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...I accept TU Ltd incurred costs to remove the vehicle and that they are entitled to retain the fee. 12. In view of the above, the claim is dismissed. Referee: K Edwards Date: 22 March 2022 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 rehe...

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

   ...hearing Mr S argued that NB was aware that there were works taking place on the road and had not made a reasonable effort to protect his assets. Mr S pointed out that there were two flyers sent to property owners by Fulton Hogan and Auckland Transport informing them of the work. He also argued that it is common knowledge and NB ought to have been aware that concrete pouring could cause harm, and taken steps to keep his business assets safe. 10. The flyers inform residents that work on...

6. HD v FT [2017] NZDT 1396 (20 March 2017) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...are reasonable as they have been approved by an assessor. 11. Accordingly FT is liable for the costs of repairs to HD’s car of $3,883.78. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 20 March 2017 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to apply...

7. KM and MM v IO Ltd and LC Ltd [2020] NZDT 1408 (15 May 2020) [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...June 2020; and The claim against IO Ltd is dismissed. The issuing of this order has been delayed as a result of the COVID 19 lockdown. Reasons 1. On 19 August 2019, LC Ltd (‘LC’) entered KM and MM’s property at [Property A], and performed extensive tree pruning (‘pollarding’) on a large [Redacted] tree in their front yard. 2. IO Ltd had engaged LC to work on a tree at the front of [Property B], but LC mistakenly entered the neighbouring property belonging to KM and MM...

8. JU Ltd v U Ltd [2021] NZDT 1633 (6 October 2021) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...was most likely to have occurred on a number of separate occasions. Therefore, I find that it was caused by multiple events, and U Ltd is entitled to charge multiple excesses. 8. U Ltd has charged excesses on a room by room basis. It presented information from the Insurance Ombudsman as the basis for calculating the excesses this way. No other arguments or suggestions for a basis on which to calculate the correct number of excesses were made. Therefore, I accept U Ltd’s calculations...

9. GU Ltd v LN [2022] NZDT 59 (7 June 2022) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...a. What were the terms of the contract for hiring the scooters? b. Have those terms been breached? c. If so, what is the remedy? 3. LN did not attend the hearing. LN was phoned to join the hearing however the call did not connect. LN had informed the Registrar he would not be attending. The hearing proceeded without LN on the evidence presented in accordance with s42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA). What were the terms of the contract for hiring the scooters? 4. The

10. 2023 February Family Violence Provider Update [pdf, 150 KB]

    ...checks required for the facilitator approvals process. The document also clarifies the requirements of the Children’s Act 2014 in regard to police vetting and safety checking of facilitators. Providers will choose from two options when they’re requesting a vetting check: • ‘Agency name’ (Select this option when requesting a vetting check for any staff who will not be facilitating programmes), or • ‘Agency name – Family Violence Specialists’ (Select this option...