10901 items matching your search terms
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 159 APPLICANT UE and QO RESPONDENT CO Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. This order should be read with that dated 27/10/23. 2. This dispute had its origins back in 2012 when the UE and QO’s (the applicants) home in [Street] suffered devastating and catastrophic damage in a natural disaster, a land s...
...infiltration incident, where he conceded that he may have missed a scheduled spray. 5. To support his claim that the insect infiltrations were caused by poor workmanship in the installation of the unit, KW provided evidence from B Ltd in the form of an email that states in part ‘The entry point of the sensor beam wire which came in through the back of the control box was not sealed. That is where the slug could have got in and shorted the board, and as for the spraying of insec...
...car the car works fine? 5. I find that KU did not make a misrepresentation when she meet with NC and clarified that the cars works fine, and that money would need to be spent on the car to get it road legal. I make this finding on the following information: a. KU stated she informed NC that the car worked, and that money would need to be spent to get it road legal. She said NC kept making low offers to buy the car and when doing so he would say that he didn’t know if there was any...
...duress to accept the quote? 6. DI suggested that she was pressured into accepting the quote. She gave examples of UM taking her for coffee and making several contacts with her about accepting the quote. These examples given by DI are acceptable forms of soliciting for business. They do not reach the level of ‘duress’. Duress is the imposition of unacceptable pressure by threats that force a person to enter a contract. Duress has two fundamental elements: first, there must be the exe...
...matter was heard before in via an in-person hearing at the request of the parties so that I could use the photo taken by DS and compare it with the Respondent to determine likeness as the identity of the driver is in question. 17. Given the information, I find that I cannot confirm that it was the Respondent who was the driver of the vehicle. Having viewed the photo and the Respondent in person and compared to the photo of the Respondent on his driver’s licence, I cannot confirm t...
...Native Land Court awarded the Waikoukou block to Paora Tuhaere and Wiremu Reweti Te Whenua. [3] Between 1884 and 1908, parts of the Waikoukou block were gifted to (and later taken by) the Crown for railway purposes. This includes the land now forming Lot 1 and 2. Following the corporatisation of New Zealand Railways, Lot 1 and 2 were declared to be surplus Crown land. In 2001 Lot 1 and 2 were vested back into Paora and Wiremu as the original owners. [4] Applications have now bee...
On this page: Message from the Manager Legal Aid Services Family Legal Advice Service not available for Oranga Tamariki proceedings Amendment to grant forms and high cost cases policy Arrangements when duty lawyers are unable to attend on a rostered day Accommodation disbursements Family Violence legislation takes effect Legal services for mental health patients Pre-sentence reports Legal Aid Triennial Review Criminal case assignment – Christmas, New Year availability Cut-off date for invoice
...Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA)). These provisions then reinforce the position of buyer beware in private sales except in limited circumstances. 8. If the buyer can establish that a misrepresentation was made in the process of the contract being formed, then the buyer can make a claim. Section 35 of the CCLA provides that when a buyer has been induced to enter a contract by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent that person is entitled to damages as if the representation w...
...work at all. He rejected the suggestion the two of them had ever been friends. He later said that BQ had come to his premises to drink kava, and on that occasion did some work on some light fittings. That work took at most about an hour and was performed while drinking kava in between. 5. BQ, as the applicant, bears the burden of proving his claim on the balance of probabilities. It needs to be ‘more likely than not’ that his version of events is true. 6. BQ acknowledged that...
...has paid $9,600.00, as it forgot to account for the $1,000.00 garage deduction when calculating payment. In other words, it has paid more than I have calculated. However, as the amount paid is less that the original budget, and because U Ltd has not formally counterclaimed for a refund, no further adjustment is required. Referee: J P Smith Date: 14 December 2023 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe...