11261 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 99 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT C Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER U Ltd The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. REASONS 1. At about 3.15 p.m. on 14 January 2025 OT was driving along the road between [Street 1] and [Street 2], heading home to [Street 2]. At or near the roundabout of [Street 3/ Street 4] intersection, the paintwork and...
...foreshadowed, steps are now in train to improve the integrity of the register, notwithstanding fresh complaints that have emerged about that process. [41] Further proceedings concerning the register seem inevitable. Indeed, as foreshadowed, fresh requests for the review of the registration process have been filed. Those requests will need to be dealt with in due course by way of separate application. Those persons who seek to challenge the review of the register, and the claims...
...after TT took back the keys to the house. 6. The Management Agreement also states clearly (second page, second column, first paragraph) that “We (TT’) indemnify the agent against all actions, claims and costs arising out of the proper performance of the agents duties as the property manager or the exercise of any powers duties or authorities contained in this management authority” 7. Based on the evidence put before me which included detailed photographic evidence, and...
...intention as to the future. 7. BU claims that when he first asked about the car, he did advise that he had a large family, including five kids and needed a big family car. He recalls asking if the car was a seven seater. 8. BU presented the LTSA information that came with the car, which stated interior was a 7 seater. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 9. Mr Q said that at no point during the presale did BU ask about the car’s seating capacity, that is whether it is a fiv...
...BN’s claim because he has not been able to prove he owned the fence, and therefore cannot prove he has suffered damage or destruction of his property. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 8 February 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a re...
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 399 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In 2020 OT purchased a used [performance car] from [dealership] in [City 1]. After travelling 8,000kms and within the three year warranty period, he discovered the water pump was leaking. He took the vehicle to BN, the [dealer] in [City 2], who could not find any coolant leak
...Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 204 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT LX The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. FX is the director of N Ltd (the Applicant). FX is the father of NX, former husband of LX (the Respondent). NX and the Respondent separated in November 2022, and a separation and relationship agreement was executed in October 2024. 2. Clause 15 in the agreement reads: “[NX] takes responsibility for rep...
...Tribunals Act 1988). CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Conclusion 17. For these reasons HN Ltd is to pay HG the sum of $137.61 by the date stated in the order. Referee: K Rendall Date: 28 August 2019 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 made: for example, the relevant information was not available or a mistake was made. If you wish...
...fee could be higher than the outer range of the estimate depending on the time spent and the outcome. 10. I note too that Rule 9.4 of the Lawyers & Conveyancers Act (Lawyers Conduct & Client Care) Rules 2008 requires a lawyer to “inform the client promptly if it becomes apparent that the fee estimate is likely to be exceeded”. There is no evidence to support that QC Ltd told NQ that the fee is likely to exceed (by some considerable margin) the fee estimate in the terms of...
...under Q Ltd’s [reference]. 2. The claim by Q Ltd against GM is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. On 11 March 2024, GM (‘GM’) parked in the car park of N Ltd. She was in the park for approximately seven minutes. In May 2024, GM received information from Q Ltd that she had been in breach of using the park and had been sent a breach notice and three reminder notices. GM seeks an order that she is not liable to Q Ltd for the breach and cumulative fees to the value of $320.00.