Search Results

1. INZ (Calder) v Chiv [2019] NZIACDT 73 (21 October 2019) [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...communication, as well as the coordinated preparation of all the paperwork. [11] As for the concern raised that Mr Chiv had apparently failed to maintain client confidentiality at all times, it was submitted that the disclosure of confidential information “albeit one-off for administrative efficiency”, fell under one of the exceptions for disclosing confidential information. The disclosure was permitted because it had the clients’ express authorisation. The clients had appoi...

2. BD v BM Ltd [2023] NZDT 395 (23 August 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 395 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT BM Ltd The Tribunal orders: BD’s claim against BM Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In January 2023 the applicant and his family were on holiday in [city] and had booked flights to return to New Zealand with the respondent. The outbound flight was delayed for 54 hours due to a numbe...

3. Alchin and Scott TRI-2020-100-001 Procedural Order 9 [pdf, 102 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2020-100-001 BETWEEN ROSEMARY ALICE ALCHIN and SIMON FRANCIS SCOTT Claimants AND HAMILTON CITY COUNCIL First Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER 9 (Declining recall application) Dated 9 March 2022 2 Application [1] The Tribunal released my determination of this claim in favour of the claimants on 4 February 2022. On 17 February 2022, counsel for the parties filed a joint memorandum seeking an extension t...

4. Reekie v Roberts [2013] NZHRRT 7 [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...by Ruth Wood as McKenzie friend Mr P Dacre for Defendant DATE OF HEARING: 11 and 12 October 2012 DATE OF DECISION: 14 March 2013 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL Introduction [1] Mr Reekie’s case is that he addressed two information privacy requests to his former lawyer, Mr Roberts. He alleges that as neither request was responded to it follows that on each occasion there was an interference with his privacy as defined in s 66(2)(a)(i) of the Privacy Act 1993. He seeks (inter al...

5. OT v KD [2024] NZDT 49 (15 February 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 49 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT KD APPLICANT’S J Ltd INSURER The Tribunal orders: KD is to pay J Ltd $15,896.78 within 28 days. Reasons [1] OT and her insurer, J Ltd, represented by LT, claim from KD the value of a [vehicle] and...

6. LI Ltd v OZ [2022] NZDT 34 (30 March 2022) [pdf, 202 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 34 APPLICANT LI Ltd RESPONDENT OZ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about 1 July 2020 a vehicle driven by OZ suffered a blown tyre and left the road at [location], entered the rail corridor, travelled over the tracks, and collided with a residential fence. 2. LI Ltd (LI LTD)...

7. S Ltd v LB [2023] NZDT 207 (5 April 2023) [pdf, 95 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 207 APPLICANT S Ltd RESPONDENT LB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The order is to be emailed to J Ltd. Reasons: 3. The matter has previously been part heard and adjourned for LB to inform his insurer of the claim. Today LB did not answ...

8. MS v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 763 (18 December 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 763 APPLICANT MS RESPONDENT (amended) D Ltd The Tribunal orders: D Ltd shall pay MS $2,400.00 by 25 January 2024. Reasons: 1. MS purchased a second-hand vehicle from D Ltd on 24 March 2022 for $19,000.00, of which $1,500.00 is still owing. MS also purchased a [warranty policy] for $1,100.00, which is also still owing. 2. The vehi...

9. CU & OU v DX & Ors [2024] NZDT 790 (28 September 2024) [pdf, 205 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 790 APPLICANT CU C/- U Trust APPLICANT OU C/- U Trust RESPONDENT DX C/- X Trust SECOND RESPONDENT KU C/- X Trust THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT E Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT FE The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The parties own neighbouring commercial propertie

10. TD & LP v KK & F Ltd [2024] NZDT 688 (10 September 2024) [pdf, 131 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 688 APPLICANT SECOND APPLICANT TD LP RESPONDENT KK SECOND RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. LP is to be added as an applicant to this claim. 2. KK and F Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay TD and LP the sum of $690.00 on or before 1 October 2024. 3. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons: