Search Results

1. GC v DM & PO Ltd [2022] NZDT 64 (7 June 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...include the nature of the goods, the price, any statements on the packaging, any representations by the supplier or manufacturer, and other relevant circumstances. 5. Section 7(4) of the CGA provides the supplier with a defence where the consumer is responsible for the failure. The first requirement for this defence is that the goods have been used in an unreasonable manner or to an unreasonable extent. The second requirement is that “the goods would have complied with the guarantee o...

2. [2022] NZREADT 21 - Wei v REAA (14 October 2022) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...her licence due to non- compliance with CPD requirements. The Applicant was given 10 working days to respond and an opportunity to complete training in the next 10 working days. A link to a list of approved training providers was provided. No response was received from the Applicant. [10] On 23 May 2022, the Authority sent a letter to the Applicant by email advising her that her licence was cancelled on the basis that she had not completed the requisite continuing education, pur...

3. Wray v Heath - Ongaonga No 1G Sec 2 (2022) 247 Waikato Maniapoto 250 (247 WMN 250) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...[22] The confusion appears to have stemmed from a clear lack of process within the trust. There were no regular meetings, either in person or via Zoom, rather the majority of interaction was via email. The clouded understanding of roles and responsibilities, coupled with the lack of process around meetings and decision making, significantly impacted on the parties’ ability to work together. [23] Another point of opposition was an alleged misappropriation of funds. Following...

4. [2022] NZEmpC 209 Anderson v Noa Farms (2014) Ltd [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...been ordered by the Court. [23] A submission that attempts to pin the entire delay for the payment, particularly of the undisputed amounts, on the plaintiff is not attractive. Further, it is untenable to attempt to hold counsel for the plaintiff responsible for not providing a means of payment when she had provided accurate details by way of email one day after the costs judgment. Mr Beech’s submission that fault lay with counsel for the plaintiff, because she should have been a...

5. ED v CC [2022] NZDT 228 (25 November 2022) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...were not an option because they could not be freighted at such a young age. He then set out a schedule for feed deliveries and stated he would liaise with QU about a date after 7 July 2022 for the birds to be sent. 19. ED did not receive a response to this email. On 5 June 2022 he sent a transaction summary to CC setting out his intention to send the eggs on Tuesday 7 June 2022 and advising the price of $44.00. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 20. ED did not receive a resp...

6. BD Ltd v QC Inc [2022] NZDT 162 (10 October 2022) [pdf, 132 KB]

   ...of money received by QC Inc by way of coin operated toilet, shower, washing and boat washing facilities etc. and felt compelled to change the door locks. There is no real evidence from QC Inc that money has gone missing or, if it has, that BB is responsible for it going missing. Clearly QC Inc had concerns about security such that it decided to change some locks, but to pass the cost of doing so on to BB, QC Inc would have to prove she was responsible for the loss and it has not so prove...

7. TD v SN [2022] NZDT 99 (19 September 2022) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 9. TD says that Murkules did not bite or have any contact with Austen and that it is unfair she should have paid $5,000 for vet costs when the problem Austen suffered from is a congenital issue. 10. On 2 September 2022, in response to the claim against her, SN lodged a claim against TD for $3,000, being the $1,639.79 she paid to the vet, plus other costs associated with ongoing medication required ($50 every 6-7 weeks) and stress. Issues 11. The...

8. Rakatau - Paenoa Te Akau Balance (2023) 291 Waiariki MB 162 (291 WAR 162) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...the descendants of the proprietors of Paenoa Te Akau Block.1 [2] The block is administered by the Paenoa Te Akau Māori Reservation (“the Reservation”) and the Paenoa Te Akau Trust (“the Ahu Whenua Trust”). The Ahu Whenua Trust is responsible for administering the land adjacent to Lake Taupō. The current trustees are Fred Nicholl, Kiri Potaka-Dewes, Nick Duff and Rose Spain. The Reservation administers 6.1029 hectares of land. It appears from the official Court rec...

9. Beauchamp v B & T Co (2011) Ltd (Costs) [2022] NZHRRT 30 [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...or to the Office of Human Rights Proceedings rather than by or to the plaintiff or Director. Expressed another way, a plaintiff represented by the Director has the advantage of not being personably liable for costs. Nor is the Director personally responsible for the payment of any costs. 3 [10] Ms Beauchamp has asked for an award of $17,000. It is said in submissions that by comparison a four-day hearing in the High Court would result in an award of $41,108.00 if calculated o...

10. EI v CT [2021] NZDT 1703 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 104 KB]

    ...proposed renovations to their [Town] home. 3. EI claims $603.75 being the unpaid balance of its invoice for this work. The invoice is dated 21 December 2020 for $845.25. CT and KT made a part payment on the invoice of $241.50, but say they are not responsible for the balance claimed as they did not receive satisfactory or timely services. 4. The issues I must decide are: a. Was the work done as contracted? b. If so, is EI entitled to $603.75 as claimed, or any other sum? Was t...