Search Results

1. EG & EGE v UT & UTU [2016] NZDT 949 (21 April 2016) [pdf, 81 KB]

   ...UTU SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 21 April 2016 Referee: Referee Roberts ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed against both respondents. Facts [1] EG and EGE (the applicants) purchased a property from UT and UTU (the respondents) in late 2014 and moved into the property in January 2015. A short time later, the applicants’ neighbour informed them that a large amount of greywater was discharging onto...

2. LB v CX [2023] NZDT 762 (18 December 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 762 APPLICANT LB RESPONDENT CX The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. Someone posing as CX advertised a [mobile phone] on Trade Me. LB purchased the [mobile phone] on 29 December 2022 for $850.00 and paid $870.00 into the bank account provided. 2. The goods failed to arrive and the seller initially gave as...

3. HL v UB [2024] NZDT 339 (8 July 2024) [pdf, 136 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 339 APPLICANT HL RESPONDENT UB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) K Ltd The Tribunal orders: UB is ordered to pay K Ltd the sum of $9,957.00. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 31 July 2024. The first $1,200.00 received by K Ltd from the respondent will be paid to the applicant, HL...

4. G Ltd v JC [2024] NZDT 447 (1 May 2024) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...dissatisfaction and the fact that it was taking their workers a significant amount of time to travel to and from the job site in [town]. 3. G Ltd invoiced $4592.81 incl.GST for the hours worked and JC has paid a total of $1906.00, leaving a balance claimed of $2686.81. 4. JC says he was dismayed by the quality of G Ltd’s workers’ work from the outset and raised it with the workers directly and with his son over the course of the first week. He says he paid $1906.00 based on his...

5. H Ltd v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 265 (11 May 2023) [pdf, 110 KB]

   ...for those works, and G Ltd also incurred iron plate rental charges to 22 February 2022 totalling $4,975.00. G Ltd paid $224,771.50 in total, but refused to pay the balance because its client’s quantity surveyor disputed the volume of earthworks claimed. G Ltd also queries whether some material was dumped illegally. H Ltd now claims the balance of $26,297.50 plus interest. 2. The issues to be determined are: a) Did H Ltd breach any contractual obligation regarding dumping requirements...

6. [2014] NZEmpC 104 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air NZ Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...challenge is set down for hearing on 14-16 July 2014. Any stay will require the fixture to be vacated. [2] In its application, the defendant seeks: a) An order that the proceedings be stayed until the Official Assignee evaluates the merits of the claim and confirms whether or not the manner in which it is likely to be advanced is correct. b) In the event that the remedies sought under s 123(1)(c)(i) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 1 (the Act) are determined by th...

7. 2018 archive

   ...form Audit Results and Practice Themes Clarification for duty lawyer travel Criminal fixed fee review – third set of changes Duty Lawyer Travel - policy change Pre-approved Judge directed drug testing in family cases Update – New Criminal legal aid application form now available on Baseline New criminal legal aid application form Update - Substance Addiction (Compulsory Assessment and Treatment) Act 2017 Applications Changes to legal aid provider audit and monitoring policy Criminal fixed f...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers >
   4. Whats New for lawyers providing Legal Aid

8. DS & ES v KE & X Ltd [2024] NZDT 767 (8 October 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 767 APPLICANT DS APPLICANT ES RESPONDENT KE APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. The Applicant, DS, states that she was turning at a green light when a vehicle being driven by the Respondent, which was in the lane next to her, came into her lane and collided with her vehicle. The...

9. A J Ball Family Trust [2012] NZWHT Auckland 37 [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...relevant. [8] Lang J also considered the effect of s43(1) of the Building Act 1991 which provides as follows: 43 Code compliance certificate (1) An owner shall as soon as practicable advise the territorial authority, in the prescribed form, that the building work has been completed to the extent required by the building consent issued in respect of that building work. [9] He concluded that if this reasoning is applied to the consideration of the built-by date u...

10. IH v LM [2022] NZDT 136 (3 August 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 136 APPLICANT IH RESPONDENT LM The Tribunal orders: 1. The respondent’s address is changed to [Address] 2. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant IH owns [Address]. The respondent LM is one of the two trustees of the M & P Family Trust who purchased the adjacent [Address] although he says that the ti...