Search Results

1. S Ltd v CD & K Ltd [2023] NZDT 788 (5 November 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...any delay or inconvenience was caused by a failure by S Ltd regarding the quality or timeliness of its work. Indeed, it is clear to me on the evidence that in its capacity as a service agent, S Ltd spent considerable time working on these service jobs that it has chosen not to bill or recover. In its defence of the claim to the credit recovery firm engaged by S Ltd, K Ltd said it would not pay for work because the truck hadn’t been fixed. Again however, insufficient evidence was prov...

2. WH v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 542 (16 October 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...by. The applicant said she was told by the respondent it would all be done within two weeks of starting. The respondent said it would have been impossible to do all the work in two weeks. However, when considering the time that had been spent on the job before the applicant cancelled the contract and the days the respondent said he needed to complete the job, the evidence shows that the respondent was confident the work could have been done in this time. 8. On the evidence provided to...

3. MOJ0501_Childrens-Guide-A5_DEC22_WEB.pdf [pdf, 748 KB]

   ...time with your mum and some time with your dad. There might not be much chance of your parents getting back together again. But there’ll probably be less fighting. As time goes on, your parents will probably get along OK. It’s still the job of both your parents to make sure you’re looked after. If it’s an emergency and you feel really frightened or someone is being hurt, dial 111 and ask to talk to the Police. You’ll probably want to keep seeing both your parents....

4. IL v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 845 (5 December 2024) [pdf, 161 KB]

   ...made this clear to IL. The retaining wall 12. IL says the retaining wall is much smaller than what was agreed. The section behind the wall had to be filled in but this has not happened either. He says it looks unfinished and does not do the job it was built for. 13. EE did not remove the excavated silt and dumped it behind the retaining wall. He was to add more soil behind the wall to get an event height. 14. The quote provided states: “1.2m x 18m retaining wall and 1...

5. MT v IN [2024] NZDT 507 (25 June 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...and it is decaying in places. 10. For all the reasons given above, I consider it most appropriate for the cost of a new fence to be shared between the neighbours (as per the provisions of the Fencing Act), but for the retaining aspects of the job to be paid for by MT, along with any drainage needed on her side as she wishes, because the natural ground contours were altered on MT’s side originally, so she is required to continue to support the land at the boundary. CI0301_CIV_D...

6. TC v L Ltd & WC [2024] NZDT 898 (6 December 2024) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...cracked. She called her insurance company who carried out an investigation. They found that the cracking was due to the film treatment that was applied to the glass and declined her application for cover. TC called L Ltd but was told it was ‘WC’s job’. Over the following months TC attempted to contact WC to find a remedy for her cracked panes. She said that he made lots of promises to provide a remedy, but none eventuated. During this time, more cracks formed, and the condition...

7. [2025] NZIACDT 41 – KU v Wang (1 August 2025) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Self-represented Complainant: No appearance Adviser: S Laurent, counsel 2 INTRODUCTION [1] The complainant engaged a consulting company which in turn engaged the adviser, to find a job for him and then seek his visa. The visa application was successful and the complainant came to New Zealand, but shortly afterwards returned to China for reasons unknown to the Tribunal. [2] A complaint to the Immigration Advisers Authori

8. MH v C Ltd [2025] NZDT 214 (29 April 2025) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...place in [Location]. 5. MH says the contract was based on volume, not weight. She says she could not have known the weight limit of C Ltd’s truck and if weight was an issue for C Ltd, C Ltd should have enquired about weight before taking on the job. 6. MH has paid a total of $4,000 to C Ltd. Which she says is a larger proportion of the total price than the volume of the goods delivered. 7. MH has since engaged another moving company to transport her remaining belongings to [...

9. Roborgh v Lay [pdf, 303 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00062 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN LYNNE ROBORGH and LEON JOHN ROBORGH Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liquidation) Sixth Respondent AND No Seventh Respondent AND TIMOTHY

10. Berry & Ors as Trustees of the Burns Berry Trust v Lay [pdf, 301 KB]

    CLAIM NO: 00136 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN ELIZABETH WAUGH BERRY, DONALD JEFFREY WAUGH BURNS and CLAIRE MARIE RYAN as Trustees of the Burns Berry Trust Claimants AND No First or Second Respondents AND STEPHEN BRIAN LAY Third Respondent AND JESSOP TOWNSEND LIMITED Fourth Respondent AND AUCKLAND CITY COUNCIL Fifth Respondent AND ARCHITECTURAL WATERPROOFING LIMITED (in Liq