Search Results

1. SM v UU Ltd [2022] NZDT 159 (15 December 2022) [pdf, 159 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. LL & TM v I Ltd & TE [2023] NZDT 730 (7 December 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...APPLICANT LL and TM RESPONDENT I Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT TE The Tribunal orders: I Ltd is to pay LL and TM $5,558.31 plus interest of $165.44, a total of $5,723.75, within 28 days. TE has no liability in this matter, and the claim against him is dismissed. Reasons [1] The applicants, LL and TM, claim from I Ltd, represented by director TE, and TE, the sum of $19,169.52. The applicants say that I Ltd breached a contract under which I Ltd was ob...

3. EU v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 308 (8 August 2023) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...basis that it was entitled to terminate the contract and there was little more it could do other than the support it had already provided. EU also sought assistance from [sporting body] and the Sports Tribunal of NZ. Both organisations considered the matter to be contractual and did not accept her complaint. 5. On 8 June 2020, O Ltd gave formal notification of the termination of the contract and then paid EU $4,329.00 representing six weeks’ in lieu of notice under the contract....

4. LCRO 137/2015 RR v BN, SF, WE, IM and PL (3 August 2018) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...halt to Ms RR bringing any further proceedings. Complaint [8] The allegations made by Ms RR in her complaint to the New Zealand Law Society (NZLS) dated 25 March 2015 include fraud, perjury, “fabrication of evidence, conspiracy to defeat justice, deceit and other similar scandalous allegations” on the part of Mr BN and Ms SF. Ms RR’s view is that Mr WE, Mr IM and Ms PL are complicit in their clients’ wrongdoings. She believes the practitioners have all failed to uphold t...

5. HB Ltd v K [2021] NZDT 1301 (13 January 2021) [pdf, 212 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. TH v KX [2023] NZDT 191 (26 June 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...address] very often. This is untrue and in fact quite the opposite of the truth. In fact, [KX] spent most of the time at the flat, and as he was always staying this was a major factor in why I moved out”. Mr G had his statement sworn before a justice of the peace. 7. As the parties were in a relationship, there is no presumption that they will be legally bound by the agreements they make unless the surrounding circumstances show that they intended to be legally bound by what they...

7. UX v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 105 (16 March 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...an Order for the return of the vehicle to J Ltd, as UX has asked in his claim. Therefore, all I can do is make an award of compensation as best I can in accordance with the provisions of the CCLA, and in accordance with the substantial merits and justice of this case. 22. UX was asked in Order dated 13 December 2022 to provide a written valuation of the UTV in its current condition from an appropriate tradesperson/salesperson. In that same Order, J Ltd was given the opportunity to al...

8. ML Ltd & PQ v ST & NT [2024] NZDT 534 (1 October 2024) [pdf, 239 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...

9. B Ltd v Z Ltd [2024] NZDT 621 (11 July 2024) [pdf, 216 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. XT v TT & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 622 (24 July 2024) [pdf, 286 KB]

    ...claim against Mr TT, who was carrying out spray-painting work at the next door property. 3. B Ltd subsequently applied to join C Ltd as a second respondent based on the law of bailment. 4. There have been numerous adjournments of the claim. The matter was scheduled for a teleconference hearing on 18 July 2024. Representatives for B Ltd, M Ltd, and C Ltd attended the hearing via Teams. 5. Mr TT did not attend the hearing. Three calls were made to his contact phone number in [coun...