12996 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 320 APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT XS The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. In 2021, NL lodged a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. Following the hearing in January 2022, the case was adjourned because XS was preparing a complaint to the District Law Society against NL regarding their service. At that time the Disputes Tribunal believed th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) RESULT OF APPLICATION FOR REHEARING [2024] NZDT 18 APPLICANT person or organisation making the original claim BU RESPONDENT person or organisation originally claimed against B Ltd Result of application for rehearing: Rehearing Refused The Order of 14 September 2023 stands. Reasons for decision: 1. I held a teleconference hearing today to establish if a reheari...
...ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2019] NZEmpC 5 EMPC 310/2018 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application as to scope of challenge BETWEEN SHANE HATCHER Plaintiff AND BURGESS CROWLEY CIVIL LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: L Hansen, counsel for plaintiff T Wano, cou...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 397 APPLICANT QL Ltd RESPONDENT JM Ltd The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant claims that its [van] was damaged during a break in at his premises on or about the 28 July 2022. The applicant took his vehicle to [auto mechanic] for repair. [Auto mechanic] quoted $7,179....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 774 APPLICANT DX RESPONDENT E Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT DH The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. DX is to collect the joinery from E Ltd on or before 30 September 2024, unless the parties reach an agreement that it can be returned for a lesser refund. Reasons 1. DX purchased some joinery for a price of $11,690.00...
...IN THE MATTER OF Rotopounamu 2B3A BETWEEN ROSE MOHI & mDITH HALL Applicants AND 21 August 2009 GUSTAF LEON JANSON & SONIA LOUISE JANSON Respondents RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C T COXHEAD AS TO COSTS Introduction [1] This is an application by Rose Mohi and Judith Hall for costs following the Jansons request to dismiss their status of land application. [2] The respondents Gustaf Leon Janson and Sonia Louise Janson made an application for change of status for Rotopou...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 166 APPLICANT HN RESPONDENT UC RESPONDENT JS Ltd The Tribunal orders: UC and JS Ltd are to pay $5,500.00 to HN on or before Wednesday 21 June 2023. Reasons: 1. HN collects classic [cars]. He was restoring a [classic truck] and took it to UC for a quote to have it repainted. UC operates a business restoring vehicles....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 107 APPLICANT SQ RESPONDENT LD APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. SQ claims that LD drove into the rear of his car at the lights that had just turned from orange to red on [Road]. LD denies making contact with SQ’s car and points out that th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 680 APPLICANT KY and LZ RESPONDENT SE The Tribunal orders: SE is to pay $3000.00 to KY and LZ on or before 26 January 2024. Reasons 1. KY and LZ purchased a [vehicle] from SE via [online platform] on 15 February 2023, paying him $3000.00 for the car. 2. Within a few weeks of SE delivering the car to them, [Car Rental Company] rep...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 555 APPLICANT DH RESPONDENT FI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In November 2023, DH loaned $2,600.00 bond money for a tenancy entered into by her son EI and his partner FI. 2. The tenancy only lasted for a short time, from 26 November 2023 to 11 February 2024. The landlord refunded the bond equally between...