Search Results

1. IJ v BS [2024] NZDT 645 (17 October 2024) [pdf, 191 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...

2. KU & LU v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 742 (7 November 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 742 APPLICANT KU APPLICANT LU RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. D Ltd is to pay KU and LU $1757, on or by 5 December 2024, and must arrange to collect the dinghy from them. Reasons 2. KU and LU purchased an inflatable dinghy from D Ltd. The purchase was made through D Ltd’s website, and the particular dingh

3. Body Corporate 81738 v Wellington City Council [2010] NZWHT Wellington 15 [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...details of the various repair costs as particularised by the Claimants. Consequential Damages [63] The claimants also seek consequential damages being interest incurred by the claimants with the cost of remedial work carried out at their request. There is a further claim for general damages. 21 Special Damages [64] In Taylor v Auto Trade Supply Ltd & Anor13 the High Court discussed matters pertaining to special damages. In that case, the Court al...

4. GT v SGG Ltd & Ors [2017] NZDT 1047 (27 November 2017) [pdf, 83 KB]

   ...with the tiny house still only partially built. The liquidators, who are the individual respondents in this proceeding, included the trailer and build along with three other trailers in the sale of HKL’s business to a third party. [4] Ms GT now claims $12,737.05 from the liquidators and their employer SGG Ltd in damages for the conversion of the trailer. Issues [5] The issues to be determined are: a. Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the claim? b. Should the matter...

5. CB v DS LCRO 61/2017 [pdf, 91 KB]

   LCRO 61/2017 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [city] Standards Committee X BETWEEN CB Applicant AND DS Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mrs CB has applied for a review of a decision by the [city] Standards Committee X which decided to take n...

6. [2012] NZEmpC 156 Newick v Working In Ltd [pdf, 226 KB]

   DAVID NEWICK V WORKING IN LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 156 [7 September 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 156 ARC 39/11 IN THE MATTER OF an application to strike out plaintiff's additional cause of action BETWEEN DAVID NEWICK Plaintiff AND WORKING IN LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 21 August 2012 (Heard at Auckland) Counsel: David Neutze, counsel for plaintiff Michael O'Brien and Courtney Walker, counsel for defe...

7. [2018] NZEmpC 80 Avondale College Board of Trustees v Maday [pdf, 246 KB]

   ...AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 80 [17 July 2018] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2018] NZEmpC 80 EMPC 149/2018 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 proceedings BETWEEN AVONDALE COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Plaintiff AND CATRIONA MADAY Defendant Hearing: (on the papers filed on 19 June and 3 July 2018) Representation: P...

8. BF v YU [2015] NZDT 742 (13 February 2015) [pdf, 65 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 742 BETWEEN BF APPLICANT AND YU LIMITED RESPONDENT Date of Order: 13 February 2015 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that YU Limited is to pay the sum of $29.48 directly to the applicant on or before 6 March 2015. Reasons [1] BF went to YU Limited’s (‘YU’) premises in November 2014 to purchase a wall-hung basin. She spoke to one of th...

9. WNO v Oranga Tamariki [2025] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 127 KB]

   ...provided WNO with an extensive release of information that it held about her, from which two pages of information were redacted. Oranga Tamariki provided WNO with a summary of that redacted information. [2] WNO subsequently made an information privacy request to Oranga Tamariki for that redacted information. Oranga Tamariki refused WNO’s request. [3] WNO claims that Oranga Tamariki’s refusal to provide her with the redacted information interfered with her privacy in breach of th...

10. OT v KI [2024] NZDT 385 (3 May 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 385 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: KI is to pay the sum of $2,974.48 to OT on or before Friday 24 May 2024. Reasons: 1. In April 2022, KI (the supplier) visited the home of OT (the consumer) and quoted a price of $1,558.02 to apply film to some of her windows. The consumer accepted the quotation and paid a...