Search Results

1. SG & LN v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 715 (12 December 2023) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...compensation for emotional distress associated with these difficulties and having to delay the unveiling to honour LN’s late father. 3. M Ltd, through its representative EH, says this is not a situation where M Ltd breached its agreement with the applicants but rather they have simply changed their mind about the design. In these circumstances it says M Ltd should not have to refund, or if any compensation is awarded, M Ltd should at least be able to retain its significant producti...

2. [2021] NZEmpC 39 TPT Forests Ltd v Penfold [pdf, 240 KB]

   ...an application for leave to set aside or vary an order AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to join party AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for interim non-publication order BETWEEN TPT FORESTS LIMITED Applicant AND TPT GROUP LIMITED Intended Second Applicant AND CRAIG PENFOLD First Respondent AND SIMON STRONGE Second Respondent Hearing: 18 December 2020 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances:...

3. CC v SN & KM [2023] NZDT 475 (25 August 2023) [pdf, 167 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 475 APPLICANT (claim and counterclaim respondent) CC RESPONDENT (claim and counterclaim applicant) SN RESPONDENT (counterclaim) KM The Tribunal orders: 1. A full replacement fence is to be constructed on the boundary between the parties’ properties at [Address]. 2. The fence is to be 45m....

4. Te Manutukutuku Issue 29 [pdf, 9 MB]

   Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti 0 Waitangi Panui Waitangi Tribunal Division Department of Justice Newsletter Rua tekau ma iwa Mahuru 1994 Number 29 September 1994 ISSN 0114·717X New claim raises big issues for AN AUCKLAND Maori Trust has told the Waitangi Tribunal that the way in which a Government funding agency allocates so­ cial service funding is in breach of the Treaty. THE CLAIM BYTe Whanau 0 Waipareira trust which had its first hearing in Auckland at the beginning of this...

5. [2016] NZEmpC 34 Advance International Cleaning Systems NZ Limited v Hamilton [pdf, 160 KB]

   ADVANCE INTERNATIONAL CLEANING SYSTEMS (NZ) LIMITED v STEVEN HAMILTON NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 34 [7 April 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 34 EMPC 36/2016 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN ADVANCE INTERNATIONAL CLEANING SYSTEMS (NZ) LIMITED Applicant AND STEVEN HAMILTON Respondent Hearing: (on the papers filed on 11 and 25 February, 3 and 10 Mar...

6. [2013] NZEmpC 131 Young v Bay of Plenty DHB [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...withdrawn under sub-cl (1), it does not affect any other matters before the court that form part of the same proceedings.” [5] This allows for a part or parts of a proceeding to be withdrawn other than on an all-or-nothing basis. So, for example, an applicant or plaintiff may withdraw a claim to a particular remedy or one of a number of causes of action, without affecting the remaining matters. Despite the reference to such withdrawals being able to be made by “the applicant o...

7. BB v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 10 (5 April 2023) [pdf, 98 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...

8. UC & FC v GM [2021] NZDT 1645 (15 November 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1645 APPLICANTS UC and FL RESPONDENT GM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. UC and FL own [Address 1]. GM owns [Address 2]. 2. On or about 12 February 2019 the parties entered into an agreement (the agreement) whereby in exchange for UC and FL giving their written approval as affect...

9. SX v Q Ltd & TY [2024] NZDT 239 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...management company but Q Ltd repeatedly failed/refused to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TY was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing d...

10. LCRO 109/2023 W and F JM v EB and MK [pdf, 221 KB]

    ...NZLCRO 106 Ref: LCRO 109/2023 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 W JM and F JM Applicants AND EB and MK Respondents DECISION The names and identifying factors in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr and Mrs JM (the applicants) have applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Stan...