12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1421 APPLICANT TQ RESPONDENT LX The Tribunal orders: LX is to pay TQ the sum of $11,528.88 by 4pm on 22 April 2021. Reasons: 1. On 13 September 2019 TQ was walking her dog, B, in the [Gardens] when her dog was attacked by LX’s dog, N. B required vet care to treat his injuries that resulted from the attack. TQ claim...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 40 APPLICANT FC RESPONDENT DN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. FC has claimed that DN misrepresented the age of the horse ‘C’ when she advertised him for sale. FC based her claim on the finding of SM of [vet clinic]. The assessment from a thorough examination of C’s teeth was that he was born in 2019...
...because they clearly service commercial buildings a reasonable person would be aware the spaces are not for the general public to park in. 5. I have considered whether $396.55 is a reasonable cost. I am aware from numerous claims the cost to perform a private tow to the towing companies yard is more than a point-to-point tow. The tow company must cover the cost of insurance, storage the cost of monitoring the carparks. The amount charged is consistent with rates charged by other tow c...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 3 APPLICANT GG Limited RESPONDENT IN Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim by GG Limited against IN Limited is dismissed. Reasons 1. The applicant company GG Limited (GG) was placed into liquidation and appointed HX of CS as Liquidator. GG through its liquidator now brings a claim against IN Limited (IN) for $1...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 228 APPLICANT TM RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by TM against B Ltd is struck out. Reasons 1. TM travelled by air from [International city 1] via [International city 2] to [NZ city]. The [International city 2] to [NZ city] leg of his journey was operated by B Ltd. A dispute has arisen in relation...
WAITANGI TRIBUNAL INQUIRY UNDER THE TREATY OF WAITANGI ACT 1975 CONCERNING MARINE AND COASTAL AREA (TAKUTAI MOANA) CLAIMS (WAI 2660) NOTICE is hereby given that the Waitangi Tribunal has commenced a kaupapa inquiry into claims concerning the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011 (the MACA Act). A final deadline for the filing of any new or amended claims seeking to participate in this inquiry has been set. Date: Wednesday 20 June 2018 Deadline: 12:00pm To: The Registrar Wait...
...evidence to indicate that the Respondent misled the Applicant in any way so that he would sign the document. 12. Given this, I find that the Applicant is liable to pay the marketing costs in the amount of $2,445.00. 13. The Respondent has also claimed the amount of the debt recovery costs being $710.94. The Tribunal has limited discretion in awarding costs. In the present case, I do not consider it appropriate to award such costs. Referee: A Chand Date: 30th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 541 APPLICANT DC RESPONDENT MDC The Tribunal orders: MDC is to deliver DC’s house keys to her letterbox at the agreed address by Thursday 12 October 2023; and The balance of the claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. DC and MDC are estranged family members, whose mother was seriously ill before passing away in late October 2022....
...HEGEDUS V ACTRONIC LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2013] NZEmpC 26 [7 March 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2013] NZEmpC 26 ARC 73/12 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file challenge out of time BETWEEN MICHAEL HEGEDUS Applicant AND ACTRONIC LIMITED Respondent Hearing: By way of submissions dated 18 and 26 February 2013 Counsel: Michael Hegedus, applicant Ray Parmenter, counsel for respondent Judgment: 7 March 2013 JUDGMENT OF...
IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZACC 40 ACR 83/21 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT ON A QUESTION OF LAW UNDER SECTION 162 OF THE ACT BETWEEN MICHELLE HAGAR Appellant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: On the papers Appearances: The Appellant self-represented Ms A Douglass for...