12990 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 106 APPLICANT TN RESPONDENT KM The Tribunal orders: KM is to pay TN $1,552.96 within 28 days. KM did not appear at the hearing. Reasons [1] TN claims from KM the cost of replacing carpet in a room that KM had occupied in his, TN’s, house. TN also claims the cost of professional carpet cleaning and materials. [2] TN said that...
...APPLICANT K Ltd RESPONDENT EN The Tribunal orders: EN is to pay K Ltd the amount of $2,055.00 on or before 29 January 2024. Reason 1. The respondent suffered damage to their dwelling which was the subject of an insurance claim. The insurer obtained a quote from the applicant, and agreed to cash settle the respondents claim for the amount of the applicants quote less the excess. The applicant carried out the work and issued an invoice as per the quote, though l...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 690 APPLICANT LT RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay LT the sum of $65 on or before 6 December 2024. Reasons 1. LT is the owner of a car, driven by her daughter who parked for 7 minutes beyond the 180 minute parking limit at a private carpark on [Street]. 2. LT’s daughter was parked there while she used the gy...
...value of the boundary fence. KZ voluntarily made a contribution to the cost of the fence. Accordingly, the counterclaim must also be dismissed. Referee: L. Mueller Date: 22 April 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 42 APPLICANT MS RESPONDENT UM The Tribunal orders: UM is to pay the sum of $493.22 to MS by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. MS and UM are neighbours with a shared driveway. MS’s property is lower than UM’s and is in a dip. 2. MS’s property flooded on three occasions during storms in 2023. MS claims the floodi...
...NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 120 EMPC 413/2019 EMPC 444/2019 IN THE MATTER OF matters removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN SMITHS CITY (SOUTHERN) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Plaintiff AND JEREMY WALTER ETTLES CLAXTON First Defendant AND CANDO CREATIVE FLOORING LIMITED Second Defendant AND...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 178 APPLICANT DT RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. REASONS 1. In September 2020, DT purchased a [redacted] umbrella from N Ltd for $199.00. Two years and four months later (when the umbrella was four months out of warranty) the components of the internal rib mechanism failed. DT initially request...
IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA KI TAMAKI MAKAURAU Decision [2024] NZEnvC 062 IN THE MATTER OF an application for enforcement order under s 314 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN GISBORNE DISTRICT COUNCIL (ENV-2023-AKL-159) Applicant AND CHINA FORESTRY GROUP NEW ZEALAND COMPANY LIMITED First Respondent AND YUXIA SUN Second Respondent AND WOOD MARKETING SERVICES LIMITED Third Respondent AND IN THE MATTER OF an applicatio...
...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
...concluded that with no primary decision having been made by the Corporation as to whether Mr Frankpitt had deemed cover, that was the extent of the Reviewer’s jurisdiction; and there was no unreasonable delay by the Corporation in processing claims by Mr Frankpitt for entitlements. The Court dismissed the appeal against the Reviewer’s decision, for the reasons outlined below. 1 Frankpitt v Accident Compensation Corporation (Deemed [2022] NZACC 98. 2 Background [...