Search Results

1. 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...

2. 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

3. 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...

4. HD v BF Ltd [2022] NZDT 183 (4 October 2022) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...The claim and counterclaim are dismissed. Reasons: 1. The dispute concerns a contract for design of a new house. On 23 March 2021, the applicant HD (the client) signed an agreement with the respondent BF Ltd (the designer) headed “Short Form Agreement for Architectural Design Services”. The client (who was acting as an agent for a third party under a power of attorney) paid $5,865.00 under this agreement on 24 March, and a further $5,175.00 on 31 May 2021. The designer complete...

5. BC v GN [2021] NZDT 1674 (28 November 2021) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...BC. 4. The issues I must decide are: a. What terms were agreed? b. Was the contract frustrated? c. Is BC entitled to $581.00 as claimed, or to any other sum? What terms were agreed? 5. Under contract law, a legally binding contract is formed when both parties intend to contract on agreed terms and intend for those terms to be legally binding. The terms of a contract are formed at the beginning, not at the end, and what was agreed is looked at objectively, i.e., by looking...

6. KX and NX v GV Ltd [2022] NZDT 47 (14 January 2022) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...in s 43. None of those situations apply here. The claim for payment of the filing fee is therefore dismissed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: R Merrett Date: 14 January 2022 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 reh...

7. DN v TQ [2021] NZDT 1632 (4 October 2021) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...by 1/3 to reflect DN’s contribution. 24. For these reasons, TQ is to pay DN the sum of $1,748.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: K Johnson Date: 04 October 2021 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 reh...

8. UU v UX [2019] NZDT 1547 (25 September 2019) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...contract, only to recover damages. 9. Since the out-of-round wheel is probably not repairable, damages must be measured by the difference between the actual value of the wheels and the expected value of the wheels if the contract had been properly performed. 10. UX conceded that, even though this type of wheel is quite valuable and unique, there would be little or no market for a set of only three wheels. UU maintained that the tyres that came with the wheels were also worthless, an...

9. KI & LG v CN & MT [2019] NZDT 1507 (30 May 2019) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...& LG RESPONDENTS CN & MT The Tribunal hereby orders: CN and MT, jointly and severally, are to pay the sum of $9,033.79 to KI and LG on or before Thursday 13 June 2019. Reasons: 1. The respondents are the former owners of land over which there was a right-of-way used as a driveway by several of their neighbours, including the applicants. Following a slip on 7 July 2016, the parties disagreed over who was responsible to pay for repairs to the drivew...

10. [2022] NZEnvC 013 Arthurs Point Outstanding Natural Landscape Society Incorporated v Queenstown Lakes District Council [pdf, 755 KB]

    ...Landscape Society Incorporated’s (‘the society’) application for enforcement orders under s314(f), 2 RMA.1 The decision concerned Queenstown Lakes District Council’s (‘QLDC’) preparation and notification of its summary of decisions requested for two submissions pursuant to clause 7 of Schedule 1 of the RMA. [2] As relevant to this determination, the court found that QLDC’s summary of the rezoning submissions by Gertrude's Saddlery Limited (‘GSL’)2 and L...