11439 items matching your search terms
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000117 [2012] NZWHT AUCKLAND 41 BETWEEN ROBYN COLEMAN AND PATRICIA BAMFORD Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND RONALD ANTHONY URLICH AND JANICE WILMA URLICH (Bankrupt and Removed) Second Respondents AND GRAHAM HAYHOW (Deceased and Removed) Third Respondent AND JOHANNES LAURENTIUS APERS Fourth Respondent Hearing: 19 July 2012; closing submissions 26 July 2012 Appeara
...These costs must be reasonable, foreseeable, established and consistent with the damage caused. 8. TQ provided evidence to the Tribunal of the veterinary costs for B’s care that she claimed she has incurred as a result of N attacking B in the form of itemised invoices. These costs amount to $14,335.57. 9. TQ also provided evidence from one of the veterinarians who treated B that B had no pre- existing conditions that complicated the treatment he received as a result of the attack...
...discovered the camera was not in the box, but another item was. 3. OT seeks $330.00 the amount paid for the camera and its postage. 4. In the process of KC being served the claim, ZX contacted the Tribunal identifying himself as the son of KC. He informed that KC had died and produced a death certificate. He further informed the Tribunal that he was the person that had completed the camera auction on [the online platform] using his mother’s account. He is the identifiable and connect...
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...
...determine the claim. The matter is therefore struck out (and would otherwise have been dismissed as the applicant did not attend the hearing to present their claim). Referee Perfect Date: 12 December 2023 Page 2 of 2 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...
...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...