Search Results

1. BC v GT & TT [2022] NZDT 134 (31 August 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

2. NW v KU [2021] NZDT 1672 (26 October 2021) [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

3. EZ v LH [2021] NZDT 1585 (6 July 2021) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

4. XK v Q Ltd & KT [2023] NZDT 720 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...belief (a unilateral mistake known to the other party). (ii) (ii) Where XK and the Q Ltd were influenced by the same mistaken belief (a common or mutual mistake). (iii) Where both XK and Q Ltd both had a mistaken belief, but on different matters (different mistakes about the same subject). 8. XK maintained there had been a common or mutual mistake made because she claimed Q Ltd had to have known about her intention to book [Band 2], because of the email communication with KT...

5. HH & HT v WT Ltd [2023] NZDT 22 (28 February 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

6. T Ltd v O Ltd [2024] NZDT 190 (8 February 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...decision of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised...

7. QD v KI [2024] NZDT 147 (17 April 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

8. CW & NK v TX [2023] NZDT 411 (5 July 2023) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...would comply. While it may be unfortunate if TX did not know about his obligations under clause 3.4, I am required to make my decision based on the terms of the Agreement, because that is what the parties agreed to. CW and NK attempted to resolve this matter through the parties’ solicitors immediately after settlement, however TX would not assist. 11. CW have identified there are 4 exterior doors they do not have keys to, that are locked with a lock. These are the front door; the side d...

9. BN & QN v EG [2024] NZDT 884 (22 December 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...of the Tribunal. Specifically, the Referee conducted the proceedings (or a Tribunal investigator carried out an enquiry) in a way that was unfair and prejudiced the result of the proceedings. This means you consider there was a breach of natural justice, as a result of procedural unfairness that affected the result of the proceedings. PLEASE NOTE: Parties need to be aware they cannot appeal a Referee’s finding of fact. Where a Referee has made a decision on the issues raised as part...

10. OC v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 409 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 207 KB]

    ...alert driver using its self- service station as to when the [exhaust fluid] product should or should not be used. It cannot be held responsible for drivers who do not read the signage which is present at the pump. 19. OC raised several other matters during the hearing including N Ltd’s website not containing required information. She also claimed that relevant information contained on the Court and or Companies website was not up to date. She referred to a document produced to the...