Search Results

1. KU v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 876 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...claim against T Ltd under the acceptable quality guarantee, KU had a remedy available to him, a remedy intended to put him back into the financial position he would have been before the purchase. In rejecting T Ltd’s offer, that is the end of the matter. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 19 September 2024 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...

2. ND v BT [2024] NZDT 830 (22 October 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...[15] Nor do I consider it relevant that the [city council] did not permit work to continue because it found defects in the work that it inspected. I accept that ND could, if he had arranged the inspection and its timing himself, have attended to any matters that required rectification or completion before the inspection was done. [16] However, I do not think that BT’s act of arranging an inspection by the [City Council] justified ND’s termination of the contract. Whether it was BT’...

3. NS v T Ltd [2021] NZDT 1593 (23 June 2021) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...towed back. T Ltd invoiced a further $750.00, but NS refused to pay the invoice. 4. NS now claims a refund of $3,339.08, while T Ltd counterclaims payment of the $1,169.00 balance of its invoices. After the original order by Referee Meyer in this matter, but before this rehearing of the matter, NS sold his boat, including the faulty motor, to a third party. 5. The issues to be determined are: a) Was there a binding settlement agreement? b) Were T Ltd’s services fit for the purpose?...

4. Staiger v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late appeal to the District Court) [2023] NZACC 69 [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...scheme is minimising the economic, social and personal costs of the impact of injury on the community. Unnecessary delay in bringing an appeal to the ACC jurisdiction of the District Court carries potential costs for the appellant and also for the justice system and those involved in it. [9] In Avery v No 2 Public Service Appeal Board,1 Richmond J (for the Court of Appeal) stated: When once an appellant allows the time for appealing to go by then his position suffers a radical ch...

5. EJ v HL & BL [2020] NZDT 1330 (10 June 2020) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...2020. Reasons 1. In December 2017, Ms J purchased a horsefloat from Dr and Mrs L for $5,300.00 that has subsequently been discovered to have safety and maintenance issues. 2. Ms J has filed a claim seeking compensation of $4,999.00. 3. The matter was heard over two hearings. Dr L attended both hearings by telephone and defended the claim on the basis that an engineer advised the floor and structure was sound before the sale, and another mechanic warranted it. The Ls’ there...

6. XD v KA [2023] NZDT 348 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...to contact KA. Despite ringing that telephone number twice, KA did not answer or attend the hearing. 9. I explained to BX that he was not a party to the proceedings. I also explained that as KA did not attend the hearing I would consider the matter in his absence, which might include making CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 an order against him. At that point BX left the telephone call and the hearing continued with XD. 10. The issues I have to consider are: a. Is the r...

7. [2022] NZEmpC 86 Tupe v The Board of Trustees of Te Manawa o Tuhoe Trust [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...there is an arguable case; or put another way, whether there is a serious question to be tried such that the claim is not vexatious or frivolous; (b) where the balance of convenience lies; and (c) what is required in the overall interests of justice. [20] The first question has a relatively low threshold.7 Establishing if there is a serious question to be tried has two parts:8 (a) whether there is a serious question to be tried in relation to the claim of unjustifiable dismissa...

8. D Ltd v KL [2023] NZDT 684 (21 December 2023) [pdf, 119 KB]

   ...unprofessional emails to KL which made it plain it was not willing to engage. 14. As I have not accepted the entirety of KL’s claims about failings, and taking into account all the circumstances of this case including the substantial merits and justice, I find that compensation for the diminution in the value of the work paid for is the most reasonable remedy. To this end, I assess that KL is entitled to a $1500.00 refund. Is either party entitled to recover legal fees? 15....

9. Legal aid criminal procedure simplication project - proceeding steps [pdf, 256 KB]

   ...August 2012 Page 2 Summary Jurisdiction February 2010 Step 1: Guilty Pleas (including sentencing) during administrative appearances Activity Fixed fees/ Guideline Hours Tasks normally covered by flat fee or by guideline hours Restorative Justice Report up to 2 hours For Obtaining Restorative Justice Report – in preparation for sentencing Written sentencing submissions up to 3 hours For Preparing sentencing submissions under Sentencing Practice Note 2003 or, prov...

10. Dunworth v McLachlan [2010] NZWHT Auckland 25 [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...[1] The second respondent in this claim, DVK Roofing and Waterproofing Co Limited (DVK) lodged an appeal against the Tribunal determination dated 18 March 2010. The first ground of the appeal was that the decision was made in breach of natural justice and contravenes section 27 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 as the appellant was not served with notice of the date of hearing and therefore had no opportunity to be heard. [2] Judge Gittos in an oral judgment delivered on 8 June...