Search Results

1. Savage v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 53 [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...now revoking, deeming Mr Savage’s application for review “unacceptable” now that the relevant decision had been revoked. There is no record of Mr Savage applying to review the 14 November 1998 decision. [8] On 3 February 2014, Mr Savage requested further lump sum compensation on the basis that he had received new medical evidence that the 1988 lump sum payment was inadequate. The new medical evidence referred to arose in the context of a District Court judgment on his enti...

2. [2015] NZEmpC 21 Haldemann LLC v Nelson [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...she applied for work with the ICC he had only recently dismissed her for not having invited him to a social event, for being a Nazi sympathiser, and for falsifying her resumé. She had already raised her personal grievance and had lodged her claim with the Authority. It was submitted it would be absurd to suggest that she would have invited subsequent employers to speak to Mr Katavich in those circumstances. (d) Further, there had been evidence before the Authority in th...

3. Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2024] NZACC 001 [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...Easthope v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZACC 158. 2 Background [2] On 17 May 1986, Mr Easthope suffered an accident while playing rugby league. It appears that this accident involved him being spear-tackled to the ground. [3] The claim registration date recorded in the Corporation’s system is 23 March 1989. The Corporation’s records show that it made a lump sum payment to Mr Easthope in 1989, based on an 8% whole person impairment. The Corporation also fun...

4. SD v O [2023] NZDT 237 (18 August 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 237 APPLICANT L APPLICANT SD RESPONDENT O The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 2. Sometime in August or September 2022 SD said he was towing a tandem trailer behind his small truck, driving between [Town 1] and [Town 2] when he claims a tyre on his trailer was damaged as a result of...

5. IB v IY [2016] NZDT 1407 (25 Feburary 2016) [pdf, 96 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2016] NZDT 1407 APPLICANT IB RESPONDENT IY RESPONDENT'S INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: IY is to pay the sum of $1,846.44 to IB on or before 10 March 2016. Reasons: 1. On 14 September 2015, there was a collision between IB’s car and IY’s car on C Place, [Suburb]. At the time of the impact, both...

6. LX v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 619 (9 November 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 619 APPLICANT LX RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by LX against O Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. LX owns land on which high voltage power lines run across part of it. LX now brings a claim against O Ltd for $30,000.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Did O Ltd breach the agreement? (b) If not, was O Ltd n...

7. ED & KD v NQ [2023] NZDT 701 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 228 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 701 APPLICANT ED APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT NQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ED and KD and NQ own adjoining properties at [Town]. Currently there is an area of approximately 25 metres on the boundary that is unfenced. ED and KD approached NQ with fencing proposals. As they did not get a definitive respon...

8. HC v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 214 (14 November 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 214 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. Just over 3 years ago, HC says he purchased a T Ltd Smartwatch as part of a mobile phone bundle from a supplier. He could not recall the price of the bundle, but thought the watch at the time was valued at about $300.00. HC sa...

9. DC v F Ltd [2024] NZDT 247 (7 March 2024) [pdf, 122 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 247 APPLICANT DC RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. Around February 2018 F Ltd provided a pre-purchase inspection to DC for a property at [address] that she was interested in purchasing. DC purchased that property, she says on the basis that F Ltd had told her the property was a dry, well-built hous...

10. OU v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 264 (14 February 2024) [pdf, 171 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 264 APPLICANT OU RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In August 2023, OU bought two tickets through [ticket company] for “[concert]” in [city] on [date], for $356.30 (which included afterpay fees). However, [city council] advertised a special price of $99.00 for the tickets, in a rates notice o...