Search Results

1. Q Ltd v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 438 (11 July 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...which were provided for UE and MX. If the contract was with B Ltd, what amount should it be required to pay Q Ltd? 15. In light of my conclusion on the first issue, I am not required to further consider this issue. 16. However, because the matter was discussed during the hearing, I note that there is a significant question as to whether interest at the rate of 2.5% per day would be an interest rate that could be enforced. 17. Disregarding the effect that compounding would h...

2. BI & SI v BA [2023] NZDT 142 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...they had further information which they wanted the Tribunal to consider, I allowed the Applicants further time to send in these documents, which they did. I confirm that I have considered all the evidence filed by the Applicants in determining this matter. 4. BA did not attend either hearing. The Tribunal can hear a claim in the absence of one party. (See s 42 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) However, in order to be successful, the Applicants must prove their claim on the balance of probabi...

3. KQ v HDC Ltd [2022] NZDT 153 (28 September 2022) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...$2,500.00 is more appropriate. 14. I am also satisfied that KQ had some other foreseeable losses in the form of the cost to him of using another vehicle which belonged to his mother. I am satisfied that KQ can claim $100.00 in respect of that matter. 15. The Respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the total sum of $2,600.00. Referee: M Wilson Date: 28 September 2022 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a re...

4. LQ & QQ v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 463 (30 November 2023) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...is no extra charge for that advice. 6. LQ and QQ said they raised the issue of direction when the turf was first unrolled, before it was cut. T Ltd said the issue was not raised until after the turf was cut into shape. I consider that it does not matter when LQ and QQ raised the issue, because a reasonable installer of artificial turf would have proactively asked the consumers their preference for the direction, given the aesthetic purpose of the product and the likelihood that consumers...

5. UH v EN [2022] NZDT 155 (13 October 2022) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...ceiling. He had the roof checked and it was discovered that there were holes sealed with silicon. UH would be obliged to repair the roof. He asked the real estate agent about it and the agent offered to approach EN’s solicitor to discuss the matter, without success. UH filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim by the purchaser against the vendor of a house for about $15,000.00 for the cost of repair of a roof. 3. The issues to be determined today were as fo...

6. DN v C Ltd & D Ltd [2023] NZDT 283 (12 July 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...collector, D Ltd. It is now well- established law that disputed debt should not be placed in the hands of a debt collector nor listed as a default. Had the dispute not been resolved in a timely manner in 2021, the more proper cause of action is to refer the matter to the Tribunal. Had the respondent done so in 2021, the debt may have been more easily proved. [14] For the reasons outlined above and, on the evidence presented to the Tribunal I am not satisfied the respondent has met its...

7. X Ltd v K Ltd [2023] NZDT 284 (25 July 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...about three months later that the duals were gone. About a further year later, DP contacted him to say that he had tried to pick up the duals and they were not on the property. SB investigated, and it appeared they had been stolen. SB reported the matter to the Police. Each tried to make an insurance claim but received advice from their respective insurance brokers that the other party was the owner and so they could not claim. X Ltd filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal for a refund of t...

8. S Ltd v LB [2023] NZDT 207 (5 April 2023) [pdf, 95 KB]

   ...Court [2023] NZDT 207 APPLICANT S Ltd RESPONDENT LB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The order is to be emailed to J Ltd. Reasons: 3. The matter has previously been part heard and adjourned for LB to inform his insurer of the claim. Today LB did not answer the Referee’s call and he has not attended the hearing which proceeded in his absence. The claim will be determined on the e...

9. KQ v LI [2023] NZDT 593 (6 November 2023) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: 1. LI is to pay KQ $4500 by 27 November 2023. 2. KQ will make the car available for LI to uplift when the full sum of $4500 has been paid to her. 3. The bank account for payment is [redacted]. Procedural matter: 1. Referee Meyer first dealt with this claim in a hearing without LI. Referee Meyer rang LI for the hearing using the phone number on the file. Soon after the hearing ended, LI phoned the court saying he was waiting for the call on his...

10. Terms of Reference for Stat Review Final [pdf, 115 KB]

    ...Accordingly, the Act facilitates cooperation among reporting entities, AML/CFT supervisors, and various government agencies, in particular law enforcement and regulatory agencies. Section 156A of the Act contains a requirement for the Ministry of Justice to review the operation of the Act and consider whether any amendments are required. This review must commence no later than 1 July 2021 and must be completed within one year (i.e. by no later than 30 June 2022). 2. Purpose an...