Search Results

1. UN v CD Ltd & CD [2023] NZDT 663 (16 October 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...6. However, CD gave evidence that the existing pipes were not on the Council’s GIS when the plans were first drawn up. He said that a camera sent down could only take photos of the pipes but could not provide enough conclusive evidence or information to prove whether or not the pipes would meet Council’s current standards in order to have the resource consent approved. CD said that regardless of whether he thought the pipes were in good condition or not, he could not prove that t

2. TX v BT [2023] NZDT 401 (7 July 2023). [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...However, as the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited to $30,000.00, I find that this is the amount that the respondent should pay the applicant. Referee: K. Armstrong Date: 7 July 2023 Page 4 of 4 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 reh...

3. EX v QU [2023] NZDT 457 (18 August 2023) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...lawn or the cracking of the concrete. 23. I find that the parties cannot claim costs against each other. Referee: Verdun Tawhara Date: 18th day of August 2023. Page 4 of 4 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...

4. TM v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 142 (11 April 2024) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...problem, they began asking agents to provide customers with questions and specifically to ask them if the property is “stacked” or not. 15. SH said insurance companies do not look up house sales online to check the property and rely on the information provided them. He said that the problem became apparent when W realised it needed to ask the question to get that information. 16. Because the only evidence provided to prove TM’s claim is basically his opinion, and because SH p...

5. TT v UN [2023] NZDT 439 (21 September 2023) [pdf, 160 KB]

   ...the hearing are not able to be awarded by the Tribunal, except in particular circumstances which do not apply here. The counter-claim is therefore dismissed. Referee Perfect Date: 21 September 2023 Page 4 of 4 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 r...

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

   ...[Shopping Mall] did not have a business lounge and was not advised of any other locations that had business lounge services. 6. The website states S Ltd provides unlimited access to a business lounge. In the hearing, S Ltd accepted its website and information including the terms and conditions did not include information about the services they could access. 7. S Ltd accepted an ordinary person would not know [Shopping Mall] did not have a business lounge and would not know they ha...

7. BD v DS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1504 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...does not necessarily mean they had something to hide. There could be other reasons. Conclusion 25. For the reasons above, DS’s claim is dismissed. Referee: Ms G Jaduram Date: 14 October 2020 Page 4 of 4 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 re...

8. NX Ltd v BH Ltd [2022] NZDT 238 (1 December 2022) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...or the value of the left-behind goods, $4000.00 is set as the value because it was the applicant’s estimate of value and therefore the value of the original claim. Referee Perfect Date: 1 December 2022 Page 3 of 3 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 re...

9. FQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 248 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...satisfied that loss was reasonably foreseeable. I find FQ is entitled to be paid by T Ltd $4,000.00 for this loss. Referee: B Curtis Date: 24 November 2022 Page 4 of 4 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...

10. KQ v FH [2022] NZDT 185 (25 October 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

    ...the time of making the contract for the supply of the service. 14. For reasons outlined above, I find that FH has breached his obligations under the CGA as he did not provide a bull that would provide the expected outcome. The bull did not perform at any level despite the staffs’ best efforts to get it operational. 15. I find that the failure was “substantial” as that term is defined in the CGA (s36). Failures are considered “substantial” where the services would not h...