Search Results

1. [2015] NZEmpC 136 Cronin-Lampe v The BOT of Melville High School interlocutory [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...already considered in the determination and which were not raised within the 90-day period prescribed in the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). 2 They were not raised in the proceedings before the Authority. They are now the subject of applications seeking leave to raise further grievances out of time. b) ARC 79/13: This is a de novo challenge by the defendant Board of Trustees to a determination of the Authority dated 30 September 2013. 3 It relates to the costs aw...

2. BN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 292 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 292 APPLICANT BN RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. In October 2023, BN purchased a horse ([the horse]) from D Ltd for the purpose of developing [the horse] for himself to compete in dressage and show jumping events to a high level. 2. BN claims $24,155.06 on the basis that due to a p...

3. U Ltd v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 762 (11 December 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...$550.00 on each of 11 items of damage, a total of $6,050.00, which U Ltd regarded as unjustified. In addition, J Ltd had not covered the work that NX had done in arranging for repairs at the property and representing U Ltd in dealing with the issues applicable to the claim. LM considered these costs to be “professional fees”, and included in the policy. [4] J Ltd denied liability for any part of the sum claim by U Ltd. I shall deal with the issues in turn. The excesses [5] LM�€...

4. Mao v Howitt [pdf, 60 KB]

   Claim No: 2442 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Zhen Zhen Mao and Ying Peng Claimants And Douglas Mackay Howitt Respondent Determination Tuesday 29 August 2006 1. Index 1. Index 1 2. Summary 1 3. The Adjudication Claim 2 4. The Claim 4 5. Liability: Douglas Mackay Howitt 7 6. General Damages 8 7. Interest 8 8. Costs 10 9. Conclusion 10 2. Summary 2.1 The...

5. UO v TQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 562 (14 November 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 562 APPLICANT UO RESPONDENT TQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: UO is to pay the sum of $299.00 to TQ Ltd on or before Monday 4 December 2023. Reasons: 1. UO and his wife TO are the tenants of a house owned by TO’s mother. On 21 July 2023, their hot water stopped working, and TO rang TQ Ltd to come and fix it. 2. TQ Ltd assessed...

6. Auckland City Council (as assignee) v Irwin [pdf, 50 KB]

   Claim No: 1092 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Auckland City Council (as assignee) Claimant And David Irwin First respondent And Paterson Cullen Irwin Limited Second respondent And Stuart Brentnall Third respondent And S J Brentnall Limited Fourth respondent And Carl Ruffels Fifth respondent And Auckland City Council Sixth respondent...

7. 17 March 2025 Queenstown Airport Corporation v Remarkables Park Limited [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...may vacate the hearing. If settlement is reached prior to the hearing, please notify the Court immediately. 1. SCHEDULING AND HEARING FEES The scheduling fee is incurred when the proceeding is scheduled for a substantive hearing or any other application or proceeding (apart from an interlocutory application). The scheduling fee is not refundable if the hearing is no longer required. EC4180_NoticeOfHearing The party bringing the proceeding is liable to pay hearing fees. •...

8. LN v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 717 (4 December 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 717 APPLICANT LN RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The applicant’s name has been corrected from [redacted] to [redacted]. 2. The respondent has been renamed to reflect the contracting company – B Ltd. 3. The claim is dismissed. Reason Is the respondent required to provide a refund? 1. LN has made a claim tha...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 31 Halse v Employment Relations Authority [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...application for costs. Background [2] These proceedings have a lengthy and protracted procedural history. They stem from personal grievance proceedings filed in the Employment Relations Authority in January 2020 by Mr Halse on behalf of a former employee of Progress to Health and from a counterclaim filed in February 2020 by Progress to Health against both its former employee and Mr Halse. The counterclaim involves a claim that the former employee breached their employment agr...

10. EE v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 280 (10 August 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 280 APPLICANT EE RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay the sum of $185.14 to EE by no later than 25 August 2023. Reasons: 1. EE purchased second hand hearing aids and a charger unit from a person in [City]. When the items were approximately 18 months old, faults developed in both the hear...