Search Results

1. SN v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 645 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...contract and be compensated for the estimated costs for the repairs by another supplier of $2,139.00. She is not liable for the outstanding amount to G Ltd. Referee: P Goddard Date: 25 October 2023 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 re...

2. J Ltd v HH & KH [2023] NZDT 665 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...$494.00. Conclusion 13. For these reasons KH and HH are to pay J Ltd the sum of $494.00 by the date stated in the order. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: K Rendall Date: 28 September 2023 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...

3. NE & SE v JI [2023] NZDT 661 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 260 KB]

   ...vendor’s plumber must have noticed that the roofing paper was severely degraded on either side of the repair site and must have been aware there were wider issues with the roof. They believe the plumber and vendor had a duty to disclose this information, but turned a blind eye, and that the plumber’s work was negligent. The report from the contractor who replaced CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 the roof says there was no ‘change of pitch’ flashing and the roof was “no...

4. TU v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 670 (8 December 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...company. 5. In March 2020, TU contacted NG for a service of the system, which was carried out. Issues again arose with the system in 2021, as a circuit breaker for the system had tripped and the system had overflowed. NG installed a new pump and informed TU that water may still be CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 getting into the system and the entire system may need replacement. Given that this occurred after major drainage works occurred to ensure surface water was not gettin...

5. IP & OS v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 708 (18 December 2023) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...settlement, a completion report indicated a further Geotech report had been undertaken which confirmed topsoil depths remained unchanged from the previous report. 2. IP and OS contracted [Builder] to design and build a home. Costings were based on the information provided in the completion report. However when earthworks commenced in September 2022, it was found the site contained more topsoil than advised, ranging from 900mm to 1.1m in depth. Although [Builder] had provided for a sign...

6. DN v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 248 (4 April 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...costs. The claim is not frivolous or vexatious nor has any party unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings. On this basis the claim for costs is dismissed. Referee: Nigel Wolland Date: 4 April 2024 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...

7. SX v Q Ltd & TY [2024] NZDT 239 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...management company but Q Ltd repeatedly failed/refused to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TY was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing d...

8. LN & TN v TT Ltd [2024] NZDT 152 (1 March 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...5. The Applicant bears the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision. Whether the service was

9. Recontact panel application form [docx, 132 KB]

   [bookmark: _Toc162261192][bookmark: _Toc511226372][image: ] NZCVS recontact database [bookmark: _Toc162261193]Application form [image: X:\Photographs & Images\Logos\MOJ\PNG\MOJ No White Border\MOJ 2018_RGB.png] [bookmark: _Toc161413072][bookmark: _Toc161647769][bookmark: _Toc162261194]Contents About the recontact database 3 Eligibility 3 Assessment criteria 4 Dissemination and publication 4 Submitting your application 4 Research topic 5 Relevance and impact 6 Methodology 7 Use of the r...

10. SH v DM [2024] NZDT 211 (18 March 2024) [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...at the site. Except for the morning of 27 April 2023, there is no dispute that he was working at the premises. 12. SH did not pay the invoices because she believed that the invoices presented were amateurish and did not set out sufficient information about work carried out. 13. I agree that the invoices could provide more explanation of work carried out however I do not accept that there is so little information that the invoices should be ignored. The invoices set out the da...