Search Results

1. BX & JD v ML [2022] NZDT 283 (30 December 2022) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...dogs. 9. JD and NX have filed a $10,000.00 claim against ML for the loss of their vehicle. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 10. ML disputes liability on the basis that the cattle beast was not registered to him and therefore he has no responsibility for any damages incurred to JD’s vehicle. 11. ML did not have insurance at the time of the collision. 12. The issues to be determined are: (a) Who owned the cattle beast involved in the collision? (b) Regar...

2. D Ltd v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 190 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...workers did not actually do the mesh, there is insufficient evidence that they were unavailable to do it), no deduction is made from D Ltd’s claim for this matter. What is payable on the claim and counter-claim? 21. In applying ‘equal responsibility’ for losses arising out of the footings variation, I regard the starting point as D Ltd’s claim for the balance of the original contract price, because L Ltd have not established their QS figures and have therefore not proven th...

3. WHT Application form for single dwelling house claims [pdf, 252 KB]

   ...contract. If you are alleging negligence due to actions or inactions set out the facts and their connection to the defects and damage. In most cases you need to include details about which particular defects you consider each different party has responsibility for. Amounts sought Include in this section an itemised summary of the amounts sought for remedial work, consequential damages, and general damages. This should include or be cross-referenced to a schedule containing a bre...

4. [2023] NZEnvC 247 Kuku Holdings Limited v Marlborough District Council [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...risk that the outcome of the Variation 1 process could cast a policy shadow over its proposal. Therefore, it is no answer that the appellant has now decided that Variation 1 is the right place in which to advance its interests.10 Appellant’s response [12] The appellant says it was blindsided by the hearing panel’s decision on Variation 1 submissions. It says that when Variation 1 was notified, the appellant’s existing marine farm was provided for in an Aquaculture Manageme...

5. [2023] NZEmpC 210 Robertson v IDEA Services Ltd [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...have avoided incurring further expense. That offer was made without prejudice save as to costs (a Calderbank offer). [7] IDEA Services’ actual costs to be represented in the Authority and Court exceeded the amounts claimed. Ms Robertson’s response to costs [8] Ms Robertson’s response to the claim was that costs should not be awarded for the Authority investigation and that the amount claimed for Court costs should be reduced. She submitted that: (a) IDEA Services could n...

6. Rorason v Hughes - Tuaropaki A (2024) 323 Waiariki MB 233 (323 WAR 233) [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...statements prior to 2016 could not be retrieved. [16] With regard to the evidence of Robert Kingi, while he was not available to present his evidence at the hearing, it was properly sworn, and it was agreed for questions to be put to him in writing. His responses were set out in an affidavit dated 26 March 2024. Robert advises that he was a Marae Committee member alongside Ruth at the relevant time when the house was discussed. He says that Ruth made it clear to the Marae Committee th...

7. BN & HF v O Ltd [2024] NZDT 692 (10 July 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...extent the consent could not be issued because of compliance issues relating to the operation of the hotel’s business, resolving those compliance concerns were outside the scope of O Ltd’s agency to obtain the building consent. The information and responsibility with remedying any compliance issues remained with BN and HF as the party responsible for the running of the hotel. 23. Given O Ltd passed the information about the problem with the compliance schedule on to BN and HF, any...

8. [2025] NZIACDT 11 - INZ v Li (14 February 2025) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...order for payment of a penalty in the vicinity of $4,000 to $5,000. From the client [15] There are no submissions from the client. From the adviser [16] Ms Li provided submissions (undated, but received on 16 January 2025). She takes full responsibility for her wrongdoing, acknowledging having breached the Code by not having face-to-face contact with the client. Although her intention was to help, her negligence led to him being scammed by unlicensed agents. Ms Li did not know...

9. [2025] NZIACDT 10 – INZ v Li (14 February 2025) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...Tribunal, albeit alongside a complaint from another client upheld by the Tribunal. She did not deny any head of complaint and admitted the serious underlying wrong of failing to engage with the client. [13] The consistent breach by Ms Li of her core responsibilities and the ramification of enabling fraud may indicate a moderate penalty is appropriate. Her conduct should be denounced and Ms Li, as well as other advisers, deterred from similar behaviour in the future. [14] It is...

10. BC v BQ [2024] NZDT 390 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 142 KB]

    ...subsequent statements from witnesses, including a farrier and a vet. 19. However, on the balance of probabilities I am not satisfied that BQ has proven that [the horse] suffered laminitis and that it was caused during the time she was under BC’s responsibility. I say this for reasons which include: a. BQ did not provide any vet reports to establish the horse’s medical fitness prior to camp; b. I gave limited weight to the evidence of BQ’s neighbour given their friendship and...