Search Results

1. Paraone-Kawiti v Maori Trustee - Pukahakaha East 5B [2013] Chief Judge's MB 354 (2013 CJ 354) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...the 19 March 2010 hearing on the day of the hearing; (b) Counsel for the advisory trustees' application was made without giving sufficient time or formal notice to the applicant, which did not grant him the opportunity to avoid the costs now claimed; (c) The applicant has unnecessarily incurred costs as a direct result of the advisory trustees actions and omissions as aforesaid; (d) The advisory trustees actions were unreasonable and disentitle them to be indemnified or reimb...

2. Hipango v Peehi - Atihau-Whanganui Incorporation (2008) 221 Aotea MB 152 (221 AOT 152) [pdf, 11 MB]

   221 Aotea MB 152 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Hearings: UNDER AND A20070001902 Section 269(6), Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 HOANI HIPANGO Applicant WHATARANGI MURPHY PEEHI, ABE HEPI, DANA BLACKBURN, DON ROBINSON, MANSON BELL, ROB ERT GREY, TONI WAHO Respondents 185 Aotea MB 195, 17 April 2007 194 Aotea MB 233, 16 October 2007 197 Aotea MB 1, 21 November 2007 199 Aotea MB 110, 30 January 2008 (Heard at Whanganui) Appearances: Ms C Batt,...

3. LCRO 61/2024 VO and EO v Law Firm A and Ors (16 April 2025) [pdf, 319 KB]

   ...[2025] NZLCRO 049 Ref: LCRO 61/2024 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 BETWEEN VO and EO Applicants AND LAW FIRM A, OW, PN, EW, WR and VK Respondents DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] The applicants have applied for review of a det...

4. Matsuoka v E Tū Incorporated (Preservation Orders) [2018] NZHRRT 49 [pdf, 824 KB]

   ...application is opposed by E to. [4] In this decision I explain why the making of interim preservation orders is necessary in the interests of justice to preserve Mr Matsuoka's position. The interim order application and its grounds [5] The forms of relief sought in the statement of claim are: [5.1] A declaration of interference with privacy. [5.2] An order requiring E to to provide Mr Matsuoka with all communications between itself and LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd (LSG) relati...

5. Nisha v Devi [2011] NZIACDT 26 (5 September 2011) [pdf, 85 KB]

   ...Tribunal upheld a complaint in this matter. [2] The facts and background are set out in the earlier decision. The three elements of the complaint that were upheld were, in outline: [2.1] The Adviser accepted a professional engagement to pursue an application for a residence visa to come to New Zealand. An essential element of that engagement was to lodge an application for recognition of teaching qualifications to support the residence application. The Adviser failed to progress the wor...

6. OX v ND [2022] NZDT 62 (29 June 2022) [pdf, 111 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 62 APPLICANT OX RESPONDENT ND The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. OX was flatting with ND who was the tenant of the property at [Address]. OX was not on the lease but was in effect sub-leasing from ND as head tenant. The parties had signed an agreement dated 9 August 2020. In or about October 2...

7. Delamere v Jiang [2017] NZIACDT 1 (17 February 2017) [pdf, 295 KB]

   ...mind that she might later be able to get a visa to live in New Zealand permanently if she had adequate English language skills. [2] The critical point in Mr Jiang’s instructions occurred when Immigration New Zealand responded to Ms Wang’s application and requested additional information. Prior to the end of the time allowed to supply the information Ms Wang gave it to Mr Jiang. However, Immigration New Zealand only received part of the information. The result was that Immigr...

8. SS & YO v SR [2024] 36 (29 February 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...SS APPLICANT YO RESPONDENT SR The Tribunal orders: The claim by SS and YO against SR is partially proved. SR is to pay SS and YO the sum of $5,374.08 on or by 5:00 pm on 21 March 2024. Reasons 1. SS and YO (the applicants) bring a claim against SR (The respondent) for $8,472.39. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) What is the legal framework for considering the claim? (b) Was the waste pump installed correctly? (c) If not, was the pump in brea...

9. D Ltd v C (NZ) Ltd [2024] NZDT 116 (17 April 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 116 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT C Ltd (NZ) The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. D Ltd operates [holiday accommodation] in [Town]. It uses C Ltd (Int) as one of its booking platforms. Within the [holiday accommodation] are 21 separate apartments, each listed separately on C Ltd (Int) as each apartment is individually owned....

10. BX v DD [2022] NZDT 42 (23 May 2022) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...