Search Results

1. [2024] NZEnvC 163 Merveber Limited v Auckland Council [pdf, 277 KB]

   ...confirmed the decision of the Auckland Council Commissioners declining consent and dismissed the appeal. [2] Directions as to costs were also made. Subsequently, the Court has received an application for costs on behalf of Auckland Council, response on behalf of Merveber Limited, and final response for the Council. The principles as to costs [3] The position is summarised in Tairua Marine Limited v Waikato Regional Council as follows:2 There is no general practice that cos...

2. MN v LO [2024] NZDT 199 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 143 KB]

   ...worth spending this amount of money and claims a refund from LO of the $2,000.00 he paid and says LO can collect the bike if he wants it. He also claims the cost of the Tribunal fee of $90.00. 2. LO did not attend the hearing as there was no response to the phone number attributed to him, and no defence to the claim was provided to the Tribunal. The absence of the respondent does not prevent the hearing going ahead. 3. The issues I need to decide are: a) Did LO misrepresent...

3. DQ Ltd v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 217 (5 March 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...the cause of the damage (and I do not), then L Ltd has already been compensated for that loss. e) There were many factors, outside the control or the making of DQ Ltd that resulted in the development took longer than expected. DQ Ltd should not be responsible liquidated damages. Referee: T Prowse Date: 5 March 2024. Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision f...

4. [2024] NZEnvC 175 Zant v Central Hawke's Bay District Council [pdf, 245 KB]

   ...within 10 working days of the date of issue of the decision, lodge with the Court and serve on all other parties an application supported by particulars; and (b) any party from whom costs are sought must, within a further 10 working days, lodge a response to the application and serve it on all other parties; and (c) the applicant for costs may, within a further 5 working days, reply to any relevant matter raised for the first time in the response and serve it on all other parti...

5. NT v J Ltd [2023] NZDT 489 (26 September 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...rest stops the company’s policy is to allow for an unscheduled stop, where there is a request for a toilet break; and e. In all these circumstances, and particularly where I accept that NT’s toilet stop was brief, I find that the driver had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to check that she was back on board before departing. If not, what sum, if any, must the company pay? 7. Section 32 of the CGA sets out the remedies where services do not comply with guarantees....

6. HI v HD Ltd [2023] NZDT 85 (15 March 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...outstanding amount of $439.61. 7. HF Ltd said that as the account has now been cleared, there are no further funds outstanding and no further comprehensive credit reporting requirements that would lead to “red flags” on HI’s credit rating it is not responsible for any loss suffered by HI. 8. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did HF Ltd fail to provide services with reasonable care and skill? b. If so, what remedy is appropriate? Did HF Ltd fail to provide servic...

7. NH v QM [2023] NZDT 487 (28 August 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...whole or in part or for any particular purpose. 7. I have considered whether QM should be required to pay NH his winnings. I cannot accept QM's submission that, because he was only the initiator and not the losing party on that game, he had no responsibility to pay NH. QM was responsible for collecting the gambling debts under the contract, and there was no evidence of any agreement that he would not have to pay the winners if he did not receive the money from the losers. 8. Howev...

8. [2023] NZEnvC 201 Wason and Hall v Two Kooner Properties Ltd [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...unhindered access to the Applicants to undertake work as per the Enforcement Order for 7 days. (b) The Respondents request that the Court directs that the Applicants, its agents or contractors, do not damage the property. The Applicants’ response [14] Counsel for the Applicants opposed the application for adjournment for the following reasons: (a) the request for an adjournment has not been made in the proper form. Paragraph 5.10 of the Environment Court Practice Note 2...

9. AZ v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 268 (28 June 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...April 2022. The final inspection and discovery of the leak was less than three months later. As inspections were only contracted to be quarterly, S Ltd was not required by the contract to reinspect between April and July. For these reasons, it is not responsible for any damage that occurred between April and July 2022. Even though S Ltd and AZ’s friend failed to notice the leak in the final inspection, the cleaner found it immediately afterwards. Therefore, the failure to notice it in t...

10. EN & ND v QI & MI [2023] NZDT 272 (21 July 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

    ...dog hair in it which could have blocked the toilet. 7. Whoever is found to be liable in this case could be said to be unlucky. Overall though I have decided that by a narrow margin, it is more likely than not that the vendors, QI and MI, are responsible for the cost. I accept their daughter’s evidence that the toilet was used without problem on the morning of the settlement. I also accept the evidence of the Applicants that it was the first use of the toilet which showed it not to...