12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 228 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT CC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. CC emailed ED regarding the purchase of quail eggs and quails. 2. ED replied sending some information and proposing some dates to send a breeding group of quails, eggs and feed. 3. CC responded saying that she would love to pro...
...issue [99] The propensity evidence tendered by Mr Taylor [106] The allegation of bad faith [108] Summary of case for Corrections [114] Key findings [117] THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS [120] Interference with privacy - definition [120] Decisions on requests [121] APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO THE FACTS [126] The concessions made by Corrections in relation to liability [130] THE QUESTION OF REMEDY [135] The question of a training order [138] The conduct of the defendant...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 698 APPLICANT HK RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HK purchased a F Ltd washer/drier in October 2019 from [retailer]. The machine was delivered to, and installed at, a rental property in [Town]. 2. In May 2024, a fault developed. A F Ltd repairer found a wire was broken on the motor plu...
...‘signed’ acknowledgement from the customer to this effect. Allowing for the modern realities as to the manner in which contracts are entered into, I consider a ‘signed’ acknowledgement could be electronic, by way of completion of an on- line booking form. 10) The applicant says the relative booking was made by phone, and followed up with texts. The respondent says that its booking form (with its standard terms and conditions attached) was completed and it has submitted document...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1664 APPLICANT QL RESPONDENT OQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In July 2020 QL rented a chair in the [X] business operated by OQ. Their arrangement came to an end in January 2021, when QL says the arrangement was abruptly terminated by OQ. 2. QL’s claim is for $3,474.50. He init...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 171 APPLICANT MH RESPONDENT NB Ltd The Tribunal orders: NB Ltd is to pay MH $1,028.85 within 28 days. Reasons [1] MH claims that NB Ltd, represented by director EN, unsatisfactorily carried out repair work to her car, and claims $1,312.84 as compensation. EN denies liability. [2] MH’s case is set out in detail in...
...Registrar: In person. Complainant: In person. Adviser: S Singh, Singhs Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland. Date Issued: 19 March 2014 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The complainant dealt with his own immigration application; he provided information about his wife but did not mention he had separated from his wife and was in a relationship with someone else. [2] He then engaged the adviser to assist with a new application. Immigration New Zealand rais...
ANTO V PLANET SPICE LIMITED NZEmpC WN [2012] NZEmpC 37 [1 March 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2012] NZEmpC 37 WRC 39/10 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file challenge out of time BETWEEN ALEXANDER ANTO Plaintiff AND PLANET SPICE LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers) Counsel: Daniel Vincent, counsel for the plaintiff Paul McBride, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 1 March 2012 COSTS JUDGMENT OF JUDGE A...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 768 APPLICANT DO RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: J Ltd is to pay DO $3,394.58 by no later than 3rd December 2024. Reasons 1. The Applicant says that he purchased a vehicle from the Respondent and the right headlight of the vehicle is not working. The Applicant states that he provided ample time for the Respondent to fix th...
...another agency where the request seeks urgency and the basis for the urgency request is not a matter that the recipient is able to sensibly assess but the agency to which the request is transferred is the only agency able to properly evaluate the claimed basis for the urgency? 4 [8.2] Question 2: Is a request for urgency under s 37 of the Privacy Act a relevant factor for an agency in determining whether to refuse a request for personal information under s 29(1)(j) of that Act? [...