12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 230 APPLICANT TS FIRST RESPONDENT C Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT IQ & LQ The Tribunal orders: C Ltd is to pay directly to TS the sum of $1,469.10 on or before 26 May 2023. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Only the applicant and IQ & LQ appeared at the hearing. When I...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2017] NZDT 1423 APPLICANT EG RESPONDENT WN Limited The Tribunal orders: 1. WN Limited is to pay to EG the sum of $815.43 on or before Friday, 29 December 2017. Reasons 1. EG engaged WN Limited (the company) to transport a house lot to England. EG was sent a quote for two options: the first was one 20” container ($9,180.00)....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 735 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay T Ltd $19,875.67 on or before Friday 15 November 2024. Reasons: 1. T Ltd and H Ltd had a working arrangement where H Ltd would subcontract T Ltd to carry out work on its behalf. T Ltd did so as instructed from July 2020 to December 2022. In December 2022 T Ltd i...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2012] NZDT 186 BETWEEN ADE Ltd APPLICANT AND ZWV RESPONDENT Date of Order: 3 October 2012 Referee: Referee I Davidson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Respondent, ZWV, pay the Applicant, ADE Ltd, $380.98 within seven days of the date of this decision. Facts [1] The Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fees from the Respondent. It was common ground the App...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 74 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT ES The Tribunal orders: ES is to pay N Ltd $24,788.97 by 9 February 2024. Background 1. ES and NB (N Ltd) are neighbours. 2. On 8 August 2023, ES cut and removed 21 mature (20-25m) poplar trees located on N Ltd’s property, near the boundary. ES used a ‘tree shear’ attachment on his digger....
...APPLICANT UD RESPONDENT W Ltd The Tribunal orders: W Ltd is to pay BI, BD, CD, EB, HW, HI, HN, NT, SS, TI, and UD, the sum of $4,994.33 on or before 23 March 2024. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Reasons: 1. The applicants planned a golfing trip [overseas], and booked return flights with W Ltd. Their booking was made with W Ltd’s Group Sales Team in July 2019, and the flights were to be in April and May 2020. However, due to the impact of the pa...
Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 653 APPLICANT TS RESPONDENT LN SECOND RESPONDENT DN The Tribunal orders: Both the claim and the counterclaim are dismissed. Reasons: 1. This is a claim from TS seeking monetary contributions from LN and DN for fence remediation work conducted by him. He claims remediation was required as stormwater discharge from LN and DN’s prope...
Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti 0 Waitangi Panui Tekau rna wha Maehe 1992 Orakei Settlement - At Last One of the most contentious land claims headed towards its final resolution with the passing of the Orakei Act 1991 late last year. The Act is very different from the 1978 legislation it replaces, reflecting the new environment for the settlement of Maori claims. The former legislation referred cautiously to an 'agreement' reached between the Crown and Maori, with regar...
...District Court [2023] NZDT 519 APPLICANT BQ APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: J Ltd is to pay BQ and LI the total sum of $5953.39 on or before Friday 3 November 2023. Reasons: 1. In October 2020, the Applicants purchased a 2 storey, 2 bedroom duplex from the first owner who bought it new from J Ltd (the company) in 2017. The Applicants claim that the roofing has failed within 5 years of being built and that it is not fit for purpose, and tha...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1698 APPLICANT TO RESPONDENT OM Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TO said that on 28 November 2020 he attempted to purchase a $2,986.00 camera from OM in [City 1]. He used his eftpos card, but the transaction was declined. He tried a second time, but it was again declined. He was...