ATTAPORN CHANTAMA v MCKERCHAR LAMB LIMITED [2024] NZEmpC 49 [22 March 2024] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2024] NZEmpC 49 EMPC 234/2023 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to join a party BETWEEN ATTAPORN CHANTAMA Plaintiff AND MCKERCHAR LAMB LIMITED Defendant Heari...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 36 APPLICANT LF APPLICANT AS RESPONDENT NJ The Tribunal orders: NJ is to pay $771.43 to AS and LF on or before 28 February 2023. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. NJ owns a house at [Address]. AS and her son, LF, entered into a “House-Sharing Agreement” to commence on 1 May 2022. 2. AS said that...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 57 APPLICANT LD Ltd RESPONDENT SQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. LD Ltd’s claim for payment of its invoices is dismissed. 2. LD Ltd is to pay the sum of $4,882.70 to SQ Ltd on or before Friday 10 March 2023. Reasons: 1. On 31 May 2021, LD Ltd provided SQ Ltd with an estimate of $30,000.00 for the cost to construct...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 72 APPLICANT CL and HD RESPONDENT T Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: S Ltd is to pay CL and HD $20,348.30 by Friday 17 March 2023. Reasons 1. The parties confirmed that the correct respondent is S Ltd. S Ltd was represented at the hearing by LT (the owner of S Ltd). 2. S Ltd replaced CL and HD’...
...followed up with an email confirming the agreement. 7. On 5 April 2022, the BL and KL made a claim with their insurer, J Ltd, for the overspray damage, which was accepted. The BL and KL chose a cash settlement of $28,944.31, which was paid in July 2023. 8. On 27 February 2023, J Ltd filed this claim for $16,158.97, which included the BL and KL’ $400.00 excess. 9. BL and KL made a submission referring to substantial uninsured losses but provided no details. BL and KL then we...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 346 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT BE The Tribunal orders: BE is to pay $12,466.50 to D Ltd on or before 18 August 2023. Reasons 1. D Ltd was engaged by BE to undertake residential building work at his property in 2017. D Ltd’s director, KX, says he first became involved with the project when he was asked by the...
...COMPENSATION ACT 2001 THERE IS A SUPPRESSION ORDER FORBIDDING PUBLICATION OF THE APPELLANT’S NAME AND ANY DETAILS THAT MIGHT IDENTIFY THE APPELLANT IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 30 ACR 155/22 and ACR 181/22 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT ON A QUESTION OF LAW UNDER SECTION 162 OF THE ACT BETWEEN KC Appli...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 332 APPLICANT TG APPLICANT TS RESPONDENT SECOND RESONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT NS NS Ltd BH APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Applicant’s insurance company The Tribunal orders: 1. BH and NS Limited are both added as Respondents in the claim. 2. BH and NS Limited are jointly and severa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 62 APPLICANT XN RESPONDENT LD SECOND RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. LD must pay XN by $25,000.00 by 14 February 2023. 2. XN’s claim against S Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant owned a [car]. The applicant had owned the car for a number of years and spent time and money restoring the...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 88 APPLICANTS TX and AS RESPONDENTS WU and NU KT and WT TU and XV The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 2. TX and AS purchased a house from the respondents on 22 June 2022. They claim that they were misled into buying the house and are now seeking compensation for repairs which the house requi...