12990 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 55 APPLICANT SB RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by SB against G Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. SB purchased an [fireplace brand] floor standing fireplace from G Ltd. SB now brings a claim against G Ltd for $4,205.05. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is the fireplace reasonably fit for purp...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 131 APPLICANT BT Ltd RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons: 1. LN, director of BT Ltd claimed for payment of the last two invoices he sent to X Ltd dated 31 May 2022 and 30 June 2022. X Ltd filed a late counterclaim for hours LN claimed to have worked while in isolation, on public holi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 509 APPLICANT KG RESPONDENT P Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT DX The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim against P Ltd is withdrawn. 2. DX is to pay KG the sum of $3000.00 on or before Monday 16 October 2023. Reasons: 1. KG claims that on 18 June 2023, he purchased an electric scooter for $3000.00 from DX that she...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 222 APPLICANT ET APPLICANT DT RESPONDENT CP Ltd The Tribunal orders: CP Ltd is to pay ET and DT the sum of $8,887.00 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. On 2 August 2022, ET and DT purchased a kitset cabin from CP Ltd for $8,399.00. The price included the cost of freight from [City 1...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court: Case number: [2022] NZDT 281 APPLICANT MN RESPONDENT N Limited APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Insurer The Tribunal orders: 1. N Limited is to pay Insurer $3,653.53 within 30 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 2. On 8 June 2021 MN took her car to the N Ltd carwash. Soon after she entered the car wash, s...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 272 APPLICANT CU RESPONDENT EM SECOND RESPONDENT DQ THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT ED THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT H Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT KX The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. CU is a farmer based in [town]. 2. In 2018, CU was intereste...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 406 APPLICANT MM RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by MM against B Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. This dispute arises from a repair of an alarm system at a property owned by MM by B Ltd in September 2023. This repair cost of $483 was paid by MM (or his agent) at that time. In the present claim MM now seeks a refund of t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 85 APPLICANT HI RESPONDENT HF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HI had an account for supply of electricity with HF Ltd at her property at [Street]. 2. In August 2022 she moved to [Street]. HI said she intended HF Ltd to continue to supply her electricity at her new property. At the time HI had an...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 500 APPLICANT HE RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: G Ltd is to pay HE $5,394.08 on or before 11 October 2023. Reasons Introduction 1. In September 2022, HE booked a holiday for himself and his wife to travel to [City 1] in May 2023. The purpose of the holiday was to surprise and treat his wife who had recently...
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 481 APPLICANT TU RESPONDENT TG Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: 1. TG Ltd is to pay the sum of $13,657.79 to TU on or before 6 July 2024. 2. The claim against SC is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 20 May 2020, TU signed an agreement to lease a new [car] from TG Limited trading as SF for a period of three years. The lease required a weekly re