12993 items matching your search terms
(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
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 33 APPLICANT OB RESPONDENT BB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed as liability has not been established against either driver. Reasons 1. In October 2020, BB and the driver of OB’s car, BH, were both driving in the same direction down [Road A], with BB’s c...
...Haines ONZM QC, Chairperson REPRESENTATION: Mr RW Kee, Director of Human Rights Proceedings, for plaintiff Mr Van Wijk in person Mr JLS Shaw for second and third defendants DATE OF ACCESS HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION ON APPLICATION FOR ACCESS TO TRIBUNAL FILE: 5 March 2019 DECISION OF CHAIRPERSON GRANTING ACCESS TO TRIBUNAL FILE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS1 1 [This decision is to be cited as A v Van Wijk (Access...
...[2025] NZLCRO 037 Ref: LCRO 135/2024 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN FA Applicant AND TK and GY Respondents The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The applicant (Ms FA) has applied for review of a determination of the [Area]...
...Judgeꞌs MB 188 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT A20090017831 CJ 2009/48 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Te Rangi Kaiamokura BETWEEN TUTEA SMALLMAN Applicant Judgment: 19 March 2015 DECISION OF DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE C L FOX 2015 Chief Judgeꞌs MB 189 Introduction [1] This application filed by Tuatea Smallman (the applicant)...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1402 APPLICANT NU RESPONDENT TE The Tribunal orders: NU’s claim against TE is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 22 April 2020 NU purchased an Audi S4 vehicle from TE. Prior to purchase TE told NU that the vehicle was in good condition apart from that the keyless entry was not working. TE advised NU that he could purcha...
Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 206 APPLICANT HX RESPONDENT NM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. HX and NM are neighbours with a shared driveway (the driveway belongs to HX but there is an easement over it giving NM’s property use of the driveway). NM’s property was created as a result of a subdivision undertaken by HX. 2. NM purchase...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 727 APPLICANT DI RESPONDENT UM The Tribunal orders: DI is to pay $3,109.65 to UM by 10 October 2024. Reasons Are the parties bound by the quote for work? 1. DI contracted UM to quote for bathroom renovation work at her rental property. UM provided DI with a quote. The quote document included details of how UM had priced the work....
...September 2015, having been introduced by the firm to [Firm B] who were building surveyors, Mr FW and Ms KP appointed [Firm B] as successor architect to [Architecture Firm A] under the building contract. [10] That day, the contractor issued a payment claim under the building contract which [Firm B], as successor architect to [Architecture Firm A], had to process within the time frame specified in the building contract. On 7 October 2015, [Firm B] requested information from the co...
...against him and victimised him in breach of the Human Rights Act 1993 (HRA) as they threatened to trespass him from the store and tried to provoke him into an altercation so he could be trespassed. [2] In response to Mr Brown’s claim, PEL filed an application to strike-out the claim. The basis of the PEL’s strike-out application is that the claim discloses no reasonable 1 [This decision is to be cited as Brown v Progressive Enterprises Ltd (Strike-Out) [2024] NZHRRT 10.] 2 P...