6000 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 78 APPLICANT DN and LO FIRST RESPONDENT EK SECOND RESPONDENT NN The Tribunal orders: NN is to pay $422.05 to DN and LO on or before 5 July 2022; and The claim against EK trading as KC is dismissed. Reasons 1. DN and LO purchased their first home in late 2020. NN was the vendor. EK tradin
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 534 APPLICANT ML Limited APPLICANT PQ RESPONDENT ST SECOND RESPONDENT NT The Tribunal orders: 1. This order replaces my order dated 8 August 2024. 2. ST and NT are to return EF and TU to ML Limited on or before 6 September 2024. 3. If FG has not been spayed by the date of this order, FG is to be returned to ML Limited o
...the site. This is an error that needs to be addressed. c. Hearings Panel topic number(s) relevant to the decision or part of the decision are 081 Precincts North. d. These are matters that may be able to be addressed through Council’s Clause 16 process, but SGL has no certainty that this will happen. 7. The reasons for the appeal are that the Auckland Council’s decisions accept errors in the IHP recommendations version that are contrary to the IHP’s recommendations...
[2013] NZCOP 5 COP 012/12 UNDER The Copyright Act 1994 BETWEEN RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND Applicant AND CAL2012-E000609 Respondent BEFORE THE COPYRIGHT TRIBUNAL Jane Glover HEARING ON THE PAPERS DECISION Introduction [1] This case concerns alleged file sharing infringement under ss. 122A-U of the Copyright Act 1994 (“the Act”). 1 “File sharing is where - Sections 122A-U of the Act set out a process for c
...3. As set out in the affidavit of Rachel Ellen Whitehead; 4. That the stopping of the road better enables the Council to manage the land within the road to be stopped with and as part of the adjoining local purpose 2 (recreation) reserve; 5. That public access will be maintained and continued if the road is stopped. I will refer to factual matters contained in the affidavits where appropriate, later in this decision. [2] The road stopping proposal was initiated by the Council...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 651 APPLICANT K Ltd RESPONDENT SK and TK The Tribunal orders: 1. SK and TK are to pay K Ltd $8,072.69 on or before 1 December 2023. This is calculated as follows: Balance owed by SK and TK for pool install $9,971.69 Less compensation for remedial work to the lawn $1,899.00 Total $8,072.69 2. The balance of the claim an
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 621 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay B Ltd $18,000.00 by 25 July 2024. Reasons: 1. In September 2023, B Ltd (“B Ltd”) entered into a franchise cleaning agreement with Z Ltd (“Z Ltd”). B Ltd cancelled the agreement in January 2024 and wants to be refunded the money it paid for the business.
...post-settlement governance entity options to manage and distribute the Ngāti Maniapoto settlement, adjusting the resourcing and monetary amount for the Ngāti Maniapoto settlement to account for the re-inclusion of Ngāti Apakura, amending the rem- edies clauses in the deed of mandate, and that the Crown prioritise its rela- tionship with Ngāti Maniapoto by actively having regard to its duty of whanaungatanga. The Waitangi Tribunal heard evi- dence from claimants, the Crown, and in...
...therefore covers all costs in the proceeding between these parties at all stages. [4] It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that Mr Solomon’s legal costs have amounted to more than $80,000 and Mr Musa’s to not much less than those. [5] In the normal course of events, Mr Solomon, having been successful, would be entitled to an order for contribution to his reasonable costs of representation. The Court would start by assessing the reasonableness of his actual legal cost...
...therefore covers all costs in the proceeding between these parties at all stages. [4] It is not surprising, in these circumstances, that Mr Solomon’s legal costs have amounted to more than $80,000 and Mr Musa’s to not much less than those. [5] In the normal course of events, Mr Solomon, having been successful, would be entitled to an order for contribution to his reasonable costs of representation. The Court would start by assessing the reasonableness of his actual legal cost...