7304 items matching your search terms
...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 162 APPLICANT BM APPLICANT IM RESPONDENT KX SECOND RESPONDENT MI Ltd THIRD RESPONDENT TT RESPONDENT INSURER R Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. BM and IM purchased a section in [suburb]. They engaged KX and TT of MI Ltd to act for them in the purchase. 2. BM and IM now say that their lawyers failed to carry out appropriate due diligence for the...
...difficulty in Mr Fehling providing to NZ Post copies of any additional documents to be included in the bundle. Timetable directions [17] To progress the case to a hearing timetable directions follow below. We are aware that Mr Fehling has filed a “statement of evidence” dated 22 August 2013 (4 pages) and a statement of evidence dated 1 November 2013 containing pages 5 and 6. However, these two statements of evidence are part of documents filed for other purposes. We, on the othe...
...defendant Judgment: 21 August 2017 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH [1] This judgment deals with two interlocutory applications. First, Lyttelton Port Company Ltd applied to strike out a paragraph in the defendant’s statement of defence containing an affirmative defence. Second, Chris Arthurs has applied for disclosure of documents he says will be relevant to a claim of disparity of treatment. Both applications were opposed. App...
...directed that the interim order would lapse and there would be no restriction on publication. The plaintiff was described as “X” for present purposes. [3] At present, the application for stay and the non-de novo challenge contained in the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff have yet to be formally served on the defendant. However, Mr Goldstein, counsel for the plaintiff, has kept Mr Sherriff, counsel for the defendant, informed of the plaintiff’s desire to have the sta...
...appellant in this case has enduring difficulties that make independence difficult to achieve. The question in this case arises because the Ministry’s approach is to refuse to recognise large elements of her cashflow. Depreciation can never be claimed unless a taxpayer has first purchased the depreciable asset. The Ministry says that under the Act a beneficiary must calculate their income as though they never purchased the business asset. It says, the cost cannot be deducted when t...
...Kumandan was employed as an agent with Harcourts, Howick (Eastzone Realty Limited). Complaints have been made about two of the transactions that he undertook during this time. The first complaint is from a Shiv Paul. 2 [2] Mr Paul claims that a Mr Shah of First National, Papatoetoe had been engaged by him as an agent to sell three properties he owned at 109 Wordsworth Road, Manurewa, 149 Coxhead Road, Manurewa and 49 Countryhaven Road, Hawera. Mr Shah contacted Mr Paul...
...[3] Mr Hook has challenged the Authority’s determination on a de novo basis. The sole relief he seeks is a compensatory payment under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act) for unjustified constructive dismissal. In his statement of claim he sought compensation of $8,000. In the course of closing submissions, Mr Bennett, advocate for the plaintiff, submitted that any award ought to be reduced by 50 percent to reflect Mr Hook’s contribution to the situatio...
...defends the claim saying she has a strict no-refund policy which applies here, and she is not entitled to compensate BC. 4. The issues I must decide are: a. What terms were agreed? b. Was the contract frustrated? c. Is BC entitled to $581.00 as claimed, or to any other sum? What terms were agreed? 5. Under contract law, a legally binding contract is formed when both parties intend to contract on agreed terms and intend for those terms to be legally binding. The terms of a...
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 782 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT KC The Tribunal orders: 1. KC is to pay D Ltd $14,045.22 on or before 20 December 2023. 2. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. D Ltd sold and supplied various products to KC on a charge up basis. 2. D Ltd claim $14,703.04 for unpaid invoices and the interest on those invoices. 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did...
...and skill? 6. BD says that three independent builders stated that C Ltd should have been able to identify the problem with the structural beam inside the wall, based on the condition of the external cladding. BD has provided two short written statements from her builders, to that effect. 7. NU for C Ltd contends that the ‘rot of the structural members were within the wall and therefore not visually identifiable on the day of the inspection’, and that ‘it only became visible f...