Search Results

1. Hawke v ACC [2013] NZACA 5 [pdf, 86 KB]

   ...[2012] NZACA 11; Stewart v ACC [2012] NZACA 14; and Chalecki v ACC [2012] NZACA 15 &16; all decisions and review decisions were made under the 2001 Act and the right of appeal given to the District Court. Judge Beattie refused the Corporation’s request to transfer Chalecki out of the Authority because irrespective of the Act applied by the Corporation or 5 [15] With respect to questions of law, the principles extracted from the relevant authorities summarised by Cadenhea...

2. Auckland City Council as Assignee v Irwin [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...the contractual (and possibly tortious) duties owed to Mr Gunji by S J Brentnall Limited and therefore he has no liability to the Auckland City Council as assignee of the claims made. 2.8 I have reserved costs for further submission as I was requested. 3. The Adjudication Claim 3.1 The adjudication claim commenced with an application dated 9 July 2003 by Kiyomi Gunji as owner of 22 Vale Road, St Heliers, Auckland, being an application under s9 of the Weathertight Homes R...

3. HI v TN [2022] NZDT 53 (11 January 2022) [pdf, 200 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 53 APPLICANT HI RESPONDENT TN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] HI purchased from TN a 2004 Ford Falcon which, HI claims, was found after the sale to have substantial defects. HI alleges that TN misrepresented the condition of the vehicle, and claims compensation for repairs and resulting...

4. Trustees of the Speirs Family Trust [pdf, 50 KB]

   ...the Weathertight Homes Tribunal, PA McConnell Date of Decision: 8 July 2009 Background The Speirs Family Trust filed applied for a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under s 49 of the Act for a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the eligibility criteria. This review was based on the Chief Executive’s decision that the dwelling was not built within ten years immediately before the day on which the claim was brought – that ten year period...

5. KB v KP [2023] NZDT 184 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 184 APPLICANT KB RESPONDENT KP The Tribunal orders: 1. KP is to pay KB $7,700.00 on or before 21 July 2023. 2. U are requested to release the [electric mountain bike] to KB on production of a copy of this order. 3. Once KP has paid the $7,700.00 to KB, KP may arrange to collect the bike from KB. Reasons: 1. K...

6. T v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 79 (06 August 2015) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...where the applicant worked. He explained the discrepancies in terms of typing errors, the employer’s limited English language skills, and said the relevant ANZSCO Unit Group 4116 (411611 Massage Therapist) was consistent with beauty services. He claimed many tasks in the Massage Therapist description did not relate to “any form of therapeutic massage”. He concluded “as a massage therapist our client performs the duties of both a beauty and massage therapist”. [5.8] Immigration...

7. NC v HU [2023] NZDT 692 (21 December 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 692 APPLICANT NC RESPONDENT HU The Tribunal orders: HU is to pay NC $1,000.00 on or before 31 January 2024. Reasons Introduction 1. At the end of July 2023, NC moved into a flat with HU. HU was the head tenant. In or around 26 August 2023, NC moved out of the flat. 2. NC seeks the return of his bond of $1,000.00. 3. The issues to be...

8. TT v D Ltd & TC [2024] NZDT 488 (25 June 2024) [pdf, 171 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 488 APPLICANT TT RESPONDENT D Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT TC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In September 2023, TT purchased a tenanted two-bedroom apartment with a carpark in [suburb] from TC for $29,000.00 at an auction held by D Ltd. TT was informed by the tenants during the pre-settlement ins...

9. King & Bailey [2011] NZWHT Auckland 2 [pdf, 92 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. The assessor’s report date...

10. [2025] NZIACDT 01 – ZJ v Liu (13 January 2025) [pdf, 158 KB]

    ...WeChat text by ZA (the agent) who claimed to represent employers needing workers for recovery work following floods. Mr Liu replied quoting a fee of $800 for each application. [6] Mr Liu then provided the agent with a link to a questionnaire and requested that each applicant fill in their personal information. The complainant completed the questionnaire on 5 March 2023. [7] RM, an associate of the agent, provided a file of supporting documents concerning the complainant to Mr...