Search Results

1. L Ltd v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 86 (22 February 2024) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...terminal in their shop. In that case the bank bears the risk that the card may have been stolen. Ms L in this case evidently did not appreciate that there was a difference in the processes and in the risks that applied to them. It is a principle of the law of contract however that where a party to a contract has the terms and conditions made available to them so they can decide whether to enter into the contract or not, the party is bound by the terms and conditions whether or not they rea...

2. M Ltd v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 416 (30 August 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...money be repaid back to M Ltd. P Ltd refused to return the money. 4. M Ltd contacted its bank and paid for a recovery request which was actioned by M Ltd’s bank. That request from the bank was declined. 5. M Ltd took legal advice, and its lawyer wrote to P Ltd requesting a return of the money. The money was not returned. 6. M Ltd is seeking $3,292.15 which is made up of the sum of $2,777.25 it says was paid in error, a $25.00 bank fee for the recovery request and $489.90...

3. BU & QU v X Ltd & EP [2024] NZDT 133 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

   ...fence was a particular requirement her family had for the holiday accommodation. Given this, the absence of the fence on their arrival was a failure of the guarantee of fitness for a purpose made known to the supplier. 15. EP explained that her lawn-mowing contractors had not put the fence back in place after mowing the lawn. Once she arrived back at the property, she put the fence in place as it had been shown on the website photos. What remedy, if any, is available to BU...

4. [2015] NZSSAA 43 (1 July 2015) [pdf, 36 KB]

   ...Ministry ought to have followed up more in previous years. [20] The Ministry concede that it may have been lenient with requiring Mr XXXX’s financial information in the past but that situation could not continue. The Chief Executive is bound by law to pay only the amount of benefit which a beneficiary is entitled to receive. It was therefore essential that the correct income be charged against the appellant’s benefit entitlement to avoid overpayments. Decision [21] The appe...

5. Wang v Denekamp [2018] NZIACDT 48 (23 November 2018) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...Complainant AND Stephen Denekamp Adviser DECISION (SANCTIONS) REPRESENTATION: Registrar: In person Complainant: In person, in respect of sanctions Adviser: Mr S Laurent/Mr J Turner, lawyers, Laurent Law, Auckland Date Issued: 23 November 2018 2 DECISION The complaint [1] The Tribunal upheld this complaint in the decision Wang v Denekamp,1 dated 31 August 2018. The Tribunal found in that decision th...

6. Nikora - Section 1 D2 Parish of Katikati (2019) 185 Waikato Maniapoto MB 129 (185 WMN 129) [pdf, 465 KB]

   ...to act as Rose’s power of attorney. The Court has been advised that Rose Nikora has not granted a power of attorney because there is a question as to whether she has capacity to make such a decision. 185 Waikato Maniapoto MB 134 The law [13] It is trite to state that a transfer of shares must have the consent of the transferor. Although s 164 does not expressly state that a transfer of shares must be by consent, r 11.13(1)(c)(ii) of the Māori Land Court Rules 2011 cle...

7. CV v TND [2013] NZIACDT 20 (28 March 2013) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...Tribunal to be mindful that there is a threshold before a complaint of negligence or want of care and diligence is established. Though the statutory context is quite different, there is a discussion of the underlying policy issues in Orlov v New Zealand Law Society (No 8) [2012] NZHC 2154. [36] The Act does not attempt to prescribe further where the boundary lies, and any attempt by this Tribunal to do so is unlikely to be successful. It is necessary to consider the facts of each compl...

8. TS v A Ltd [2024] NZDT 495 (30 May 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 495 APPLICANT TS RESPONDENT A Ltd The Tribunal orders: A Ltd is to pay TS $1,137.18 on or before 5 July 2024 Reasons: 1. TS owns a property in [suburb] which she runs as Airbnb accommodation. She entered into an agreement with (A LTD) to manage the property for her. She says that A LTD has breached its agreement because it failed t

9. SP v GC Ltd [2024] NZDT 500 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...found a leak in a bedroom in the house, and had a roofer come and have a look. The roofer told SP that the roof had been laid incorrectly, because the long lap had been taken over the top of the crest, rather than under the crest. 5. The relevant law is found in sections 11 and 14 of the Limitation Act 2010 (LA) and section 393(2) of the Building Act (BA). 6. Section 11(1) of the LA provides that it is a defence to a money claim if the defendant proves that the claim is filed at...

10. HBG v AJ Ltd [2024] NZDT 501 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 501 APPLICANT HBG RESPONDENT AJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. AJ Ltd is to pay $178.99 to HBG on or before 30 June 2024. 2. HBG is to make the damaged cargo bag available to AJ Ltd to collect at its cost. To be collected on or before 31 July 2024. 3. If, by 31 July 2024, AJ Ltd has not arranged for the cargo bag to be collected, despi