Search Results

1. M Ltd v ON [2023] NZDT 389 (21 September 2023) [pdf, 113 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. F Ltd v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 374 (28 July 2023) [pdf, 117 KB]

   ...F Ltd seeks $990.00 from O Ltd for that work. In response, SO of O Ltd says that there was no agreement for BQ or his company to do any work for his company, and O Ltd does not owe F Ltd any money at all. 2. The issues to be determined in this matter are: (a) What (if anything) was agreed between the parties in relation to electrical work? (b) If there was an agreement, was the agreed work carried out? (c) If the work was carried out, what payment is F Ltd entitled to? What (if...

3. DG v NQ [2023] NZDT 139 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 185 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...

4. BI v K Ltd [2023] NZDT 243 (17 March 2023) [pdf, 101 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...

5. IT v A Ltd [2023] NZDT 419 (6 September 2023) [pdf, 195 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...

6. TC v X Ltd & I Ltd [2024] NZDT 706 (4 September 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...because it was pushed down the pipes, being too far down the pipes to be pulled out, but it would be sufficient for the civil standard of proof that both plumbers thought that was the likely cause. 12. However, the second blockage complicates matters and because they were only a month apart, the chance of them being unrelated seems low. There was considerable disagreement about what was pulled out of the pipes by who on the second occasion. The respondents point out that if the plasti...

7. CO v B Ltd & Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 718 (16 September 2024) [pdf, 126 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...

8. D Ltd v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 769 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 155 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...

9. H Ltd v QH [2023] NZDT 771 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...Ltd placed a concrete driveway and paths for U Ltd in late 2021. It says it is owed $4,250.00 for its final invoice. 2. The claim was previously heard by a different referee and an order made against U Ltd. A rehearing was later granted, and the matter has been fully heard again. 3. U Ltd filed a counterclaim, which was withdrawn at a previous hearing. Shortly before the current hearing U Ltd advised that it was seeking a refund of a $1,000.00 overpayment it believed it had made. Howeve...

10. NS & TS v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 892 (6 November 2024) [pdf, 148 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...