Search Results

1. O Ltd v TO [2023] NZDT 341 (24 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...claimed costs for. 6. As already stated, the Tribunal cannot award costs in this case, including the filing fee, and O Ltd’s claim must therefore be dismissed. Referee Perfect Date: 24 May 2023 Page 2 of 2 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that 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 rehe...

2. BI v O Ltd [2024] NZDT 269 (27 February 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 269 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT O Ltd (trading as OX) The Tribunal orders: This claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. KI took her car into O Ltd (trading as OX) to repair a chip in the windscreen of the car. She was quoted $100 to repair the chip. When the technician started to fix the chip, it cracked. KI was advised that she will need t...

3. U Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 627 (5 September 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 627 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay U Ltd the sum of $4,260.75 within 21 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. On 15 August 2021, the parties entered into a contract whereby U Ltd would carry out digital marketing services for T Ltd. Clause 6.2 of the contract provides that T Ltd may cancel th...

4. NI v FI & MI & GI [2023] NZDT 592 (13 October 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...respondents moved his aircraft some time in the first half of 2021, however he did not raise the issue of damage with them until December 2021 when he sent them a letter asking for compensation of $9000. As he did not receive a reply to his letter, NI claimed in the Disputes Tribunal on 4 March 2022 for compensation for the costs of repairs. Repair costs have now increased to $15,452.29. 5. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are as follows: i. Did the respondents damage the pl...

5. MT v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 740 (29 October 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...it allows customers to set up an account, although in this instance, P Ltd did not even provide that service to MT. It provided the service to a person pretending to be MT. 10. It is appropriate to take a broad and purposive approach to the application of the CGA, which is intended to be consumer protection legislation. Taking that broad approach I accept, for the purpose of this analysis, that P Ltd owed MT (indirectly) a duty of reasonable care and skill. 11. MT’s argument...

6. [2015] NZEmpC 216 Roy v Tamaki College Board of Trustees no 3 interlocutory [pdf, 151 KB]

   ...AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 216 [3 December 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 216 ARC 92/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to inspect the court file BETWEEN CHRISTOPHER SCOTT ROY Plaintiff AND TAMAKI COLLEGE BOARD OF TRUSTEES Defendant Hearing: By written application and memoranda filed on 25 November...

7. EW v KR & K Ltd [2024] NZDT 319 (29 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 319 APPLICANT EW RESPONDENT KR SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim against KR is dismissed. K Ltd is to pay $588.33 to EW by 17 May 2024. Reasons 1. The claim against KR is dismissed because EW did not contract with him. Was the Inverter of acceptable quality? 2. EW purchased a 4000W-24v...

8. [2015] NZEmpC 18 Severinsen & Anor v AFFCO NZ Ltd [pdf, 14 KB]

   ...THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN PAUL SEVERINSEN, JIM PULLINS, RICHARD STEELE, ROSS WAKELING, KERRY BOURKE, BARRY HINGA, LEE KARAMAINA, ERIC HULENA, PAUL MASTERS and JASON RANGI Applicants AND AFFCO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: (on the papers by application dated 30 January 2015) Appearances: J Unsworth, counsel for the applicants R Webster, counsel for the respondent Judgm...

9. [2012] NZEmpC 162 Ong & Ong trading as Pharmacy 72 v Massie [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...discontinuance makes no mention of the matter of costs. [2] Mr Tee, counsel for the defendant, has filed a memorandum seeking costs as of right on account of the discontinuance. In the memorandum the Court was advised that the plaintiffs have now filed an application in the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority) seeking to have the determination of 10 April 2012, 1 which led to the challenge, reopened. The memorandum states that the defendant’s actual costs incurred on...

10. DU & TU v OE [2024] NZDT 75 (30 January 2024) [pdf, 247 KB]

    ...this case changing the law of tort to allow someone who does not own property to claim compensation from another party is not applying a discretion to determine the dispute according to the substantial merits and justice. TU and DU have to qualify as applicants before s 18(6) can even be considered. They do not. 12. Section 44 likewise does not apply because it can only be considered where no provision is made in the DTA. In this case, there is provision – s 10 sets out the jurisdicti...