Search Results

1. UH v KM Ltd [2023] NZDT 111 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 117 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 111 APPLICANT UH RESPONDENT KM Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In August 2022, UH bought a 2002 [automatic car] from KM Ltd for $45,000.00. He uplifted it from [Suburb] a few weeks later and noticed an issue with the gearbox transmission. On 20 September 2022, he raised this and some other issue...

2. HD Ltd v DX [2023] NZDT 781 (20 November 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 781 APPLICANT HD Ltd RESPONDENT DX The Tribunal orders: DX t/a X Ltd is to pay $4,191.18 to HD Ltd on or before 6 December 2023. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. DX engaged HD Ltd (HD Ltd) to root-rake an area of land part of which was cut-over forestry and the other part covered with scrub/vegetation. The work was carri...

3. KT v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 382 (14 June 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 382 APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT P Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. Around March/April 2023 KT purchased a 2021 [vehicle] for $30,500.00 from P Ltd. KT now wishes to return the vehicle and seeks a refund of $30,000.00 being the maximum jurisdiction of the Tribunal as he says he was not advised it is a type of...

4. IM v KL & B Ltd [2024] NZDT 867 (10 December 2024) [pdf, 154 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 867 APPLICANT IM FIRST RESPONDENT KL SECOND RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. B Ltd and KL are to pay IM $9,500.00 by 7 January 2025. Reasons: 1. In 2023, B Ltd built a carport pergola for IM. She says the carport was not built with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose. She says it has to be removed,...

5. TL v OC Ltd [2023] NZDT 775 (14 December 2023) [pdf, 235 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 775 APPLICANT TL RESPONDENT OC Limited The Tribunal orders: OC Limited is to pay TL $21,150.00 by 4 January 2024. Reasons: 1. The claim relates to a house renovation that OC Limited completed for TL in 2018/19. She says a subcontractor painted the wrong product on the cedar cladding. As a result, she says she cannot simply re...

6. Holmes v Housing NZ Corporation (Costs) [2015] NZHRRT 42 [pdf, 35 KB]

   ...Scott, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr GH Holmes in person Ms CP Paterson for defendant DATE OF HEARING: 12 and 13 November 2014 DATE OF DECISION: 11 August 2015 DATE OF COSTS DECISION: 11 September 2015 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ON COSTS APPLICATION BY PLAINTIFF1 [1] In a decision given on 11 August 2015 (Holmes v Housing New Zealand Corporation [2015] NZHRRT 36) a declaration was made that Housing New Zealand Corporation interfered with the privacy of Mr Holmes by refu...

7. TN v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 388 (28 May 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 388 AQ LTDICANT TN RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: TN is to pay Q Ltd $3,081.78 on or before 24 June 2024. Reasons 1. TN asked Q Ltd to quote for a painting job. She rejected the first quote and agreed to a subsequent quote. When she received the invoice, she objected to paying the full amount, because she said that the

8. Fifita v Tangilanu [2014] NZIACDT 108 (03 October 2014) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...engaged Ms Tangilanu to assist them. The complaint alleges Ms Tangilanu promised she would get the complainant a work visa, entered a written agreement that did not comply with the Code, failed to make the application promptly, then belatedly made a request to the Minister and later lodged an application with Immigration New Zealand in relation to the husband. Further, after taking the initial step of making a request of the Minister, she did not have an agreement relating to the subsequen...

9. [2020] NZEmpC 236 Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2020] NZEmpC 236 EMPC 476/2019 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a stay of execution AND IN THE MATTER of an application for security for costs BETWEEN DHARMENDRA MAHETA Plaintiff AND SKYBUS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED, FORMERLY AIRBUS EXPRESS LIMITED Defendant...

10. [2021] NZEmpC 165 Bowen v Bank of New Zealand [pdf, 190 KB]

    ...to the Court of Appeal. It strongly disputes that its use of the costs procedure is to prevent Ms Bowen from continuing with her proceedings. It says it is using the process as intended – to recoup its own costs which are in excess of those claimed. [15] BNZ says it succeeded entirely on the application dated 18 September 2020. It withdrew from the application its request that the communications be removed from the affidavit once the applicant had filed a new affidavit. It al...