Search Results

1. Khan v Khetarpal [2015] NZIACDT 45 (24 April 2015) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...instructions to lodge an expression of interest, and did so in a form that could not lead to a successful outcome. It claimed points that were not available for the relevant position of employment. The allegations are that she: [2.1] Lodged the defective application because she did not prepare it with due care, and professionalism. [2.2] She failed to provide advice to her client in the form required when lodging a process that had no hope of success. [3] Ms Khetarpal responded to th...

2. [2006] NZEmpC AC 53A/06 Graham v Crestline Pty Ltd [pdf, 26 KB]

   ...GRAHAM V CRESTLINE PTY LTD AK AC 53A/06 21 November 2006 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 53A/06 ARC 100/05 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN DONALD MONTROSE GRAHAM Plaintiff AND CRESTLINE PTY LIMITED Defendant Hearing: By memoranda of submissions filed on 20 October and 8 November 2006 Judgment: 21 November 2006 COSTS JUDGMENT OF CHI...

3. [2018] NZEmpC 104 Lorigan v Infinity Automotive Ltd [pdf, 255 KB]

   ...[2018] NZEmpC 104 EMPC 377/2015 EMPC 277/2016 EMPC 215/2017 IN THE MATTER OF challenges to determinations of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of proceedings removed AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a compliance order BETWEEN PETER D’ARCY LORIGAN Plaintiff AND INFINITY AUTOMOTIVE LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on papers dated 17 August to 4 September 2018) Appearances: P Lorigan, in...

4. CH v XO LCRO 119 / 2010 (3 May 2011) [pdf, 182 KB]

   LCRO 119/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 3 BETWEEN CH of Auckland Applicant AND XO of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In May 2008 the Applicant and his wife approached the Respondent for advice...

5. KT v DX [2024] NZDT 593 (28 August 2024) [pdf, 172 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...

6. CU v KI Ltd [2022] NZDT 19 (23 February 2022) [pdf, 201 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...

7. Zhong v Auckland Council [2011] NZWHT Auckland 47 [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...WEI LI Third Respondent AND STANLEY CHEN Fourth Respondent AND ORIENT BUILDERS LIMITED Fifth Respondent AND LU ZHENG Sixth Respondent AND HBRC LIMITED Seventh Respondent DECISION ON COSTS Adjudicator: S Pezaro Applications for costs [1] Auckland Council, the first respondent, and Stanley Chen, the fourth respondent, have applied for costs against the claimants. The claimants‟ claims against these respondents were dismissed on 1 July 2011. T...

8. QC v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 782 (24 September 2024) [pdf, 108 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 782 APPLICANT QC RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is to pay QC the total sum of $1,495.00 on or before Tuesday, 15 October 2024. Reasons: 1. In November 2022, QC purchased a new build property in a front lot of 8 townhouses in a development in [suburb]. QC initially claimed against the Developer S Ltd however as it was i...

9. AET Ltd v ZVB Ltd [2013] NZDT 196 (3 August 2013) [pdf, 54 KB]

   ...cut out of three joints. The sealant depth in two joints was satisfactory; however, the sealant in the third joint was found not to be deep enough. AET Ltd remedied the problem by putting more sealant over the existing sealant. [4] AET Ltd claims the outstanding sum of $4,224.69 plus $1,249.07 in interest and costs. [5] After some discussion, the parties agreed that the sealing depth should be half as deep as the width of a joint with a specified minimum depth. Is...

10. ZD v K Ltd [2021] NZDT 1611 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 181 KB]

    ...was refundable. Was K Ltd entitled to cancel the contract and retain the deposit paid? 8. A party who has entered into a contract with another party, may cancel the agreement if the other party makes it clear that it does not intend to perform or complete the performance of obligations under the contract (section 33, Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)). If a contract is unlawfully cancelled, then in some instances the Tribunal may order a refund of some or all the mon...