Search Results

1. Patel v Dean [2020] NZHRRT 37 [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...Manktelow for plaintiff Mr J Dean in person DATE OF HEARING: 12 and 13 August 2019 DATE OF DECISION: 31 August 2020 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 [1] Mr Dean is a lawyer and Mr Patel his former client. In February 2018 Mr Patel requested a copy of his file from Mr Dean. Five weeks later, Mr Dean responded and told Mr Patel he would charge him $19,175.47 for the provision of his file. Mr Patel refused to pay. Mr Patel filed this claim seeking his file and damages fo...

2. JK v RQ LCRO 174 / 2011 (19 March 2012) [pdf, 75 KB]

   ...learned of this account (after she had ceased acting for the Applicant) because another section of the firm had acted in the conveyance (and had deposited L’s funds into that account); she had no recollection of, and could find no evidence of, a request for this information having been sent to her by the Applicant. [11] The Practitioner stated that the Applicant obtained further legal representation after he moved to Wellington. She referred to correspondence between L’s law...

3. J v Khetarpal [2015] NZIACDT 95 (05 November 2015) [pdf, 224 KB]

   ...New Zealand to consider regularising his situation. He paid a fee for her services; paying half immediately, with the balance due if she was successful. [2] The complainant believed the matter was progressing. However, Ms Khetarpal did not lodge a request with Immigration New Zealand. Ms Khetarpal later left the practice without filing the request. As a result, the Tribunal considered three potential breaches of professional standards. These were: [2.1] Ms Khetarpal failed to carry out...

4. [2016] NZEmpC 77 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...Alim’s means was not raised by her but by the defendant and the non-parties. Mr O’Brien also said that 2 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 65. Ms Alim disputed the claim that she had failed to comply with the directions of interlocutory judgment (No 6). It was argued that, in any event, the documents sought were not relevant in a legal sense, that they would not assist the Court, and that the time...

5. HC v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 482 (6 July 2023) [pdf, 192 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 482 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. S Ltd is to pay HC $1794.42 on or before 5pm on 6 August 2023. 2. HC is not liable to pay S Ltd any further money. 3. If S Ltd deducts any money from HC’s account after today’s date, 6 July 2023, it is to be refunded to him in full within ten workin...

6. EF v CQ & BQ [2022] NZDT 233 (29 November 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 233 APPLICANT EF FIRST RESPONDENT CQ SECOND RESPONDENT BQ The Tribunal orders: CQ and BQ are jointly and severally liable to pay $506.95 to EF on or before 30 December 2022. Reasons 1. EF signed a sale and purchase agreement with CQ and BQ on 16 December 2021 with settlement on 18 March 2022. During a p...

7. UM v PH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1682 (14 December 2021) [pdf, 173 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1682 APPLICANT UM RESPONDENT PH Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] UM bought two house plants from PH Ltd, represented by national retail manager EX. The plants have not survived, and UM claims a refund of their purchase price on the ground that they are neither of acceptable quality nor f...

8. KM & LM v BN [2023] NZDT 181 (12 July 2023) [pdf, 122 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 181 APPLICANT KM APPLICANT LM RESPONDENT BN The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Reasons Background 1. The parties own properties on [Road], a private road on a semi-rural subdivision in [Town]. 2. Five properties in the subdivision have a right of wa...

9. N Ltd v MX [2023] NZDT 387 (5 July 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 387 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT MX The Tribunal orders: MX is to pay N Ltd the sum of $28,000.00 by no later than 27 July 2023. Reasons: 1. MX contracted N Ltd to sell his property at [address]. In May 2022, N Ltd presented MX with an offer to purchase from SU. SU offered the sum of $1,500,000 with payment of a...

10. [2007] NZEmpC AC 15/07 Gates v Air New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 35 KB]

    GATES V AIR NZ LTD AK AC 15/07 27 March 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 15/07 ARC 40/04 IN THE MATTER OF de novo challenge to determination AND IN THE MATTER OF application for security for costs and/or a stay of proceedings BETWEEN LINDA GATES Plaintiff AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 27 March 2007 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Linda Gates, plaintiff Kevin Thompson, counsel for defendant Judgment: 27 March 2007...