Search Results

1. UV Ltd v MB Ltd [2023] NZDT 81 (11 November 2022) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...garments during the cleaning process. 16. However, when UV Ltd was advised by MB Ltd that heat may be this issue, DN of UV Ltd carried out some of her own tests on the garments. She used a variety of different washing methods and states that no matter what method was used, the garments showed deterioration of the print after wash. 17. The garments washed in a hot wash showed a significant difference in the quality of the print after washing including discoloration and holes in t...

2. NN Ltd v FS [2021] NZDT 1403 (28 April 2021) [pdf, 231 KB]

   ...the barrister did have the authority to engage NN for the additional work. This is called apparent authority and FS is bound by the actions of her agent who engaged the services of NN. If FS has any issue with her barrister’s actions, that is a matter between herself and her barrister. 18. I find that FS, through her barrister, did engage NN for all work done. FS is bound by the actions of her barrister engaging the services of NN for the meeting in November 2019 and the additiona...

3. 2023 NZPSPLA 076 [pdf, 198 KB]

   [2023] NZPSPLA 076 IN THE MATTER OF A complaint under s 74 of the Private Security Personnel and Private Investigators Act 2010 against ARGYLE SECURITY GROUP (NZ) LTD and CRAIG ANDREW CAMPBELL HEARD by audio visual hearing on 2 November 2023 APPEARANCES Mr SW Mr Campbell DECISION (i) Complaint upheld: Mr Campbell is guilty of unsatisfactory conduct. (ii) Mr Campbell is officially reprimanded. (iii) Mr Campbell is to apologise in writing to Mr SW and provide confir...

4. LL & TM v I Ltd & TE [2023] NZDT 730 (7 December 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...APPLICANT LL and TM RESPONDENT I Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT TE The Tribunal orders: I Ltd is to pay LL and TM $5,558.31 plus interest of $165.44, a total of $5,723.75, within 28 days. TE has no liability in this matter, and the claim against him is dismissed. Reasons [1] The applicants, LL and TM, claim from I Ltd, represented by director TE, and TE, the sum of $19,169.52. The applicants say that I Ltd breached a contract under which I Ltd was ob...

5. DF Ltd v TS Ltd [2021] NZDT 1315 (21 April 2021) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...been able to perform it in whole or in part; expenditure incurred in pursuit of the contract; the value of work performed under the CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 5 of 6 contract; any benefit or advantage obtained by either party; and such other matters as it thinks fit (s 45, CCLA). 37. TS gave evidence that its staff had to rebuild the ringfeeder mount and repair the chassis damage from the prior mounting position and put the tank and its mounts in the correct position (with the me...

6. Form 1a - Application for criminal legal aid - Police Prosecutions [pdf, 269 KB]

   ...Your rights Reconsideration If you disagree with the decision made you may apply for a reconsideration using the reconsideration form on our website. For information about the grounds for reconsideration, the process and who to contact, go to www.justice.govt.nz. Your application for reconsideration must be made within 20 working days from the date of notice of the decision. If you do not ask for a reconsideration, the decision is final. Review If you believe that the reconsideration...

7. [2024] NZREADT 45 – Parmar v REAA, KB & LB (20 November 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...aspects of the work or services that are deficient and be made on a principled basis, commensurate with the work or services that are deficient. [26] The Authority submitted that should the Tribunal determine that it is in the overall interests of justice to refer to the new evidence on appeal, then it is open to the Tribunal to adjust the Committee’s order under s 93(1)(e) of the Act. [27] However, the Authority submitted that if the Tribunal does reduce the order made under s...

8. Selwyn v Whakatōhea Māori Trust Board - Opape 1A19B (2019) 220 Waiariki MB 94 (220 WAR 94) [pdf, 322 KB]

   220 Waiariki MB 94 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WAIARIKI DISTRICT A20190001085 UNDER Section 43, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Opape 1A19B BETWEEN PETER THOMAS SELWYN AND TE WAIRATA TE ONEONE Applicants AND WHAKATŌHEA MĀORI TRUST BOARD Respondent Hearing: 26 July 2019, 218 Waiāriki MB 161-170 (Heard at Ōpotiki) Appearances: Peter Thomas Selwyn and Te Wairata Te Oneone...

9. DT v TX [2023] NZDT 378 (1 August 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...possible return of the car? 8. A contract may be defined as a legally binding agreement or a promise or set of promises between two or more parties that the law will enforce. 9. The parties signed a contract or agreement in relation to this matter dated 17 May 2023. 10. The contract stated – “if within 7 working days the vehicle is inspected by a recognised garage/mechanic and found not to be as advertised and have issues exceeding $500 worth of repair work, the full $8,50...

10. IJ v K U Ltd [2020] NZDT 1549 (10 December 2020) [pdf, 202 KB]

    ...was a mistake by Council and a vacuum breaker was acceptable to [Council]. IJ provided transcripts of conversations with K & U Ltd employees to support her allegations about only being required to install a vacuum breaker. 7. IJ states the matter came to a head when she needed [Council] compliance sign off and the inspection failed. She states she had raised the issues with K & U Ltd many times and they ignored her phone calls and emails. She states many months later there were...