Search Results

1. [2018] NZEmpC 124 Kiwi Ink Construction Ltd v Hughes [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...be made in the prescribed manner and within 28 days of the date of the determination. [2] The limitation period was not complied with by Kiwi. Kiwi filed its application for leave on 8 June 2018. The application was accompanied by a draft statement of claim to be filed if leave was granted. An affidavit in support by George Paul Ropiha was sworn on 6 June 2018 and filed on 8 June 2018. The application was served on the respondent Dylan Hughes on 18 June 2018. An affidavit of s...

2. National Standards Committee 1 v Yang [2024] NZLCDT 8 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...invoice that appeared to be from his employer. When the client did not pay, he brought proceedings in the Disputes Tribunal in his own name, filing documents that had been altered to obscure reference to his employer.1 [2] Mr Yang filed a second claim against the client in the Disputes Tribunal seeking a further $4,632.25 – of which $1,265 was for fees that had never been invoiced, and $2,000 of which was for alleged injury to his feelings because the first invoice had not been...

3. [2021] NZIACDT 25 – RH v Ji (8 November 2021) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...Self-represented Complainant: No appearance Adviser: No appearance 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The complainant is RH. She was in New Zealand on a visitor visa, but in obtaining that visa had misrepresented her marital/partnership status. She had claimed to be single, but was actually the partner of a person in New Zealand. This was discovered by Immigration New Zealand (Immigration NZ) when the complainant applied for a work visa. She then sought advice from Yan Ryan Ji, the adv...

4. [2010] NZEmpC 131 Rooney Earthmoving Ltd v McTague & Ors [pdf, 25 KB]

   ...of discovery in the parallel High Court proceedings against the three defendants and BMW. They advised me that there has been limited discovery in the High Court proceedings in relation to a freezing order, which requires BMW to provide monthly statements to solicitors, counsel and the financial experts but which are not to be disclosed to any other person. There has been an exchange of lists of documents in a limited form, but the action in the High Court is now stayed. [7] M...

5. [2015] NZEmpC 226 Sheath v The Selwyn Foundation [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...1 Sheath v The Selwyn Foundation [2015] NZERA Auckland 134. [3] Following the filing of the challenge, Ms Sheath was dismissed from employment by the first and/or second respondents on the grounds of redundancy. She filed a statement of problem with the Authority raising a personal grievance arising out of that dismissal. In view of the fact that the challenge in respect of the earlier proceedings is already before the Court, Ms Sheath applied to the Authority f...

6. [2022] NZEmpC 103 Pilgrim v Attorney-General [pdf, 230 KB]

   ...CHRISTINA INGLIS (Application to access Court documents) Introduction [1] An application has been made by a journalist from New Zealand Media and Entertainment (NZME), a media outlet, to access certain documents on the Court file, namely the statement of claim, any affidavits filed by the plaintiffs, and an affirmation from a former Police detective which was referred to in an interlocutory judgment dated 23 March 2022. [2] NZME wishes to cover the upcoming hearing of this mat...

7. CC & TC v BE & NE [2023] NZDT 524 (18 October 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...advertisement clearly states ‘… beautiful homestead … complete with amazing gardens, tennis court and swimming pool for those hot summer days …’ I find that a reasonable person would take this to mean that the pool was in a usable state as the statement is a strong suggestion that it can be used to cool off when the weather is hot. A reasonable person would comprehend that the pool was in operating condition as it would be of little use on hot summer days if it were not. 10...

8. DE & XE v SC [2024] NZDT 71 (15 January 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 71 APPLICANT DE APPLICANT XE RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: SC is to pay XE and DE $1,000.00 by 9 February 2024. Background 1. DE and XE purchased a [vehicle] that SC had listed for sale on Trade Me. 2. The listing described the vehicle as “Good body, tyres and interior. Not running”. 3. The purchase price was $

9. NT & BT v HM [2024] NZDT 694 (20 September 2024) [pdf, 195 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 694 APPLICANT NT and BT RESPONDENT HM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In May 2023 NT, and his daughter BT, purchased a horse, [the horse], from HM for $10,000.00. NT and BT were aware that [the horse] was ‘out-of-work’ when they were considering purchasing him for BT to develop him as a competitive s...

10. QX v HC [2025] NZDT 164 (13 May 2025) [pdf, 192 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 164 APPLICANT QX RESPONDENT HC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. The adjournment order dated 21 March 2025 sets out the background to QX’s claim. 2. Both parties provided additional information for the second hearing on 15 April 2024, as discussed below. 3. I apologise to the parties for the delay i...