12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 270 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay $7,000.00 to B Ltd or before Monday 9 January 2022. Reasons: 1. B Ltd engaged H Ltd to build a trailer that is used to transport a tiny house on. After discussions and finalising the deal, B Ltd paid a deposit of $7,000.00. PO, directo...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 127 APPLICANT RQ and TQ RESPONDENT SR SECOND RESPONDENT N Trust Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Trust Ltd is to pay RQ and TQ the sum of $46.00 by no later than 29 August 2022. The claim against SR is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 17 October 2021, RQ and TQ signed an agreement to purchase real estat...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 385 APPLICANT KI RESPONDENT MA The Tribunal orders: 1. KI’s claim against MA is dismissed. 2. MA’s counterclaim against KI is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The respondent had a room to rent in her flat which she advertised on Trade Me. The applicant applied for the room and the respondent said that the applic...
...This is an appeal by SG (the appellant) from the following review decisions relating to the funding for eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy (EMDR) for the appellant: (a) decision dated 14 August 2023 dismissing the appellant’s application claiming that there had been unreasonable delay on the part of the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) in making a decision. The Reviewer found that the Corporation had made a decision on the appellant’s entit...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 354 APPLICANT KN and PN RESPONDENT V Inc The Tribunal orders: V Inc is to pay the sum of $2,898.92 to KN and PN on or before Friday 25 August 2023. Reasons: 1. On 29 August 2022, KN and PN (the consumers) paid $1,818.48 for two one-way tickets on V Inc from [NZ city] to [International city A] departing 13 Novembe
...no evidence. NY for R Ltd said they had requested [authorities]’s representative to attend the second hearing as a witness, but [authorities] declined to appear. Nevertheless, given the issues raised by R Ltd there would have been other written forms of evidence, such as independent testing, to support its claims, yet nothing was presented by R Ltd. D Ltd say that their work was done properly and the neighbour was causing problems for the site. 5. In the absence of any evidence...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 726 APPLICANT UD 1ST RESPONDENT & COUNTER-CLAIMANT ST 2ND RESPONDENT & COUNTER-CLAIMANT NT The Tribunal orders: 1. ST and NT, jointly and severally, shall pay UD $335.00 by 27 November 2024. 2. ST and NT’s counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 3. ST and NT engaged UD to house/pet sit via the [online] we...
...OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 210 APPLICANT HN, HC and TO, as trustees for the N Trust RESPONDENT NE The Tribunal orders: NE is to pay HN, HC and TO $25,062.17 within 28 days. Reasons [1] The applicants, as trustees of the N Trust, claim from NE arrears of rent and other expenses outstanding under a lease. Their claim, as landlords, is that NE is liable under a personal guarantee for the obligations of the tenant, T Ltd (“TL”), o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 661 APPLICANT NE and SE RESPONDENT JI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NE and SE (“the purchasers”) bought a house from JI (“the vendor”) in January 2023. The house is about 37 years old. They say JI failed to fulfil an undertaking to fix a leak prior to sale, and they claim $30,000.00 towards the
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 337 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HT was an [food delivery] driver between 2018 and May 2022, having entered into a driver partner agreement with Q Ltd and VX. In May 2022 Q Ltd terminated the agreement. This was because someone signed into HT’s [food delivery] account from...