Search Results

1. Head Heights Ltd [2011] NZWHT Auckland 6 [pdf, 87 KB]

   ...Section 49 of the Act provides that a claimant may apply to the Chair seeking a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the eligibility criteria within 20 working days of receiving notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached information filed on 21 December 2010....

2. [2008] NZEmpC AC 5/08 Skinner & Anor v Stayinfront Inc & Ors [pdf, 33 KB]

   ...Plaintiffs Rob Towner, Counsel for the defendant Judgment: 19 March 2008 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] This judgment concerns strike out applications made by the defendant. Background [2] When the plaintiffs filed personal grievance claims in the Employment Relations Authority, the defendant raised the preliminary question of whether final and binding settlements they had entered into at the end of their employment in 2002 amounted to accord and satisfactio...

3. HE v QZ [2023] NZDT 372 (18 January 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 372 APPLICANT HE RESPONDENT QZ The Tribunal orders: The hearing is adjourned. The parties will be notified of the date and time of the next hearing. Reasons 1. The second hearing took place on 23 December 2022 at the [Town] Court. HE and QZ attended the hearing. 2. The claim and counter-claim relate to buildi...

4. QU v LG [2023] NZDT 775 (18 December 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 775 APPLICANT QU RESPONDENT LG The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. QU purchased a horse, [The horse], from LG in December 2021. The parties agree that LG represented that [The horse] was suitable for show jumping. QU believes that this was a misrepresentation and claims: a. A refund of the $12,000.00...

5. Lee & Anor [2011] NZWHT Auckland 9 [pdf, 81 KB]

   1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 9 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6422: DENNIS LEE AND SANDRA HOCKINGS-LEE – 15A SYLVANIA CRESCENT, LYNFIELD ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Dennis Lee and Sandra Hockings-Lee are the owners of a leaky home. They filed a claim under sect...

6. MVDT Annual Report 2019-2020 [pdf, 381 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL 1 July 2019 to 30 June 2020 Dear Minister Pursuant to section 87 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 (the Act) we are pleased to submit the following Annual Report. In this Annual Report we: 1. Summarise the applications the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal has dealt with during the year. 2. Explain how those applications were resolved. 3. Detail cases which, in our opinion, require special mention. 4. Highlight the Tribunal’s incre...

7. LCRO 126/2023 EG v HJ (28 November 2023) [pdf, 283 KB]

   ...[2023] NZLCRO 145 Ref: LCRO 126/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN EG Applicant AND HJ Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The applicant has applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Standards Commit...

8. CT & ID v S Ltd [2022] NZDT 7 (2 March 2022) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 7 APPLICANT CT APPLICANT ID RESPONDENT S Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 11 March 2021 CT and ID (the applicants) engaged S Limited (SL) to perform a pre- purchase inspection report on [address] (the property). 2. Some months after purchasing the property, the applicants became aware of issues with the windows and water ingress. 3. The ap...

9. B Ltd v UE & SE [2023] NZDT 517 (2 October 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 517 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT UE SECOND RESPONDENT SE The Tribunal orders: 1. B Ltd’s claim is dismissed. Reasons: 2. In August 2022 B Ltd (the applicant) entered into a contract with UE and SE (the respondents) for concept plans, developed design, detailed design and managing building consents for ext...

10. DM v QB Ltd [2023] NZDT 124 (9 June 2023).pdf [pdf, 184 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 124 APPLICANT DM RESPONDENT QB Limited The Tribunal orders: QB Limited is to pay DM the total sum of $995.00 by Friday 30 June 2023. Reasons: 1. DM claims that on 13 April 2022 he purchased a [GPS wireless car play stereo unit] (the unit) for his [car] for $565.00 from QB Limited (the company), and also arranged for the company to...