Search Results

1. Te Manutukutuku Issue 3 [pdf, 2.9 MB]

   ...administration and assistance t9 the Tribunal and, just as importantly, claimants. It is my firW intention that in 1990 the Waitangi Tribunal Division take a more active role in supporting the work of the Tribunal proper by facilitating the settlement of claims through alternative means. This could mean, for example, advising claimants on the use of mediation as one way of settling a claim. In closing, can I take the opportunity to congratulate Tri­ bunal member Sir Monita Delamere...

2. [2022] NZACC 6 – Jones v ACC (19 January 2022) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...BETWEEN CRAIG RICHARD JONES Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: On the papers Judgment: 19 January 2022 DECISION OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Leave to appeal] Introduction [1] This is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Her Honour, Judge A A Sinclair, delivered on 11 August 2021. [2] At issue in the appeal was an application by Mr Jones for recall of a decision of the Accident Compensation Appeal Au...

3. UH v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 45 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 45 APPLICANT UH RESPONDENT D Ltd Attention: FA The Tribunal orders: D Ltd is to pay UH $1,500.00 on or before Friday 23 February 2024. Reasons: 1. In August 2023 UH booked a one-night stay at D Ltd in [City]. Having checked in successfully and then gone out, UH was unable to re-enter his room later that night because the l...

4. D Ltd v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 448 (5 June 2024) [docx, 268 KB]

   [bookmark: _Hlk120714085] [image: crest_BW] (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 448 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: G Ltd shall pay D Ltd $6,054.75 by 25 June 2024. Reasons: 1. On [date 1], D Ltd purchased [food product] from G Ltd for distribution to staff and customers prior to Christmas 2023. 2. On [date 2], the [media website] published an article online reporting that the [food] had been recalled due...

5. NG v CG [2024] NZDT 343 (26 April 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 343 APPLICANT NG RESPONDENT CG APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: CG is to pay J Ltd $5752.75 as follows: • The sum of $30 monthly commencing on or before 20 May 2024 and continuing until fully paid. • If any payment is missed the balance owed at the time of defaul...

6. ES v I Ltd & BI [2024] NZDT 143 (18 April 2024) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...and deceptive conduct when it issued a warrant for the [van] on 11 November 2021? 8. NN, director of I Ltd, said that it was the person who issued the warrant who is liable for an incorrectly warranted vehicle and not I Ltd. He said it was his former employee, Z, who issued the warrant. He had much faith in Z’s ability to issue warrants because he had been formerly engaged with VTNZ. He no longer knew where Z was. 9. The warrant was issued on the letterhead of I Ltd and has at...

7. Hettig v ANZ Bank - Kaiawhina Trust and Lot 1 Deposited Plan 158328 (2015) 104 Taitokerau MB 130 (104 TTK 130) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...proceedings; the importance of the issues; the conduct of the parties; and whether the proceedings were informal or akin to civil litigation; c) If a party has acted unreasonably – for instance by pursuing a wholly unmeritorious and hopeless claim or defence – a more liberal award may well be made in the discretion of the Judge, but there is no invariable practice; d) Where the unsuccessful party has not acted unreasonably. It should not be penalised by having to bear the...

8. OP v U Ltd & B Ltd [2024] NZDT 823 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 823 APPLICANT OP RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT U Ltd B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. B Ltd is to pay OP $14,485.00 on or before 18 November 2024. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons 1. This is a claim and counterclaim arising from the storage of the Applicant’s property. The Respondent named by the Applicant...

9. [2014] NZEmpC 91 Peters v Housing New Zealand Corporation [pdf, 69 KB]

   PHILLIP VINCENT PETERS v HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION NZEmpC WELLINGTON [2014] NZEmpC 91 [12 June 2014] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2014] NZEmpC 91 WRC 7/14 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN PHILLIP VINCENT PETERS Plaintiff AND HOUSING NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION Defendant Hearing: On the papers (submissions dated 26 February, 7 March and 1 May 2014) Appearances:...

10. Central Standards Committee 3 v Hunt [2023] NZLCDT 12 (28 April 2023) [pdf, 278 KB]

    ...Committee Ms A Cupples for the Practitioner 2 DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL ON PENALTY The perils of acting for both parties [1] This case concerns the difficulties that can be faced by a lawyer in a smaller urban centre when requested to act for both parties in a transaction. [2] The principle that emerges from an examination of Mr Hunt’s conduct and past practices, is that, when faced with the possibility of acting for more than one party to a transaction,...