Search Results

1. Legal aid final family consultation paper - 10 February 2012 [pdf, 816 KB]

   ...approach 7 Provider rates and hearing activities 7 New policy 8 Case management levels 8 Amendments to grants 8 Amendment criteria 9 Non-lawyer costs and agents’ fees 9 Applications received before and after the July 2012 start date 9 New forms 9 Changes to existing policy 9 Reassignment policy 9 Consultation feedback 11 Questions 11 Proposed Family Fees Schedules: 12 4 Introduction he Ministry of Justice is introducing a new fee framework for fam...

2. Family legal aid fees - consultation paper [pdf, 816 KB]

   ...approach 7 Provider rates and hearing activities 7 New policy 8 Case management levels 8 Amendments to grants 8 Amendment criteria 9 Non-lawyer costs and agents’ fees 9 Applications received before and after the July 2012 start date 9 New forms 9 Changes to existing policy 9 Reassignment policy 9 Consultation feedback 11 Questions 11 Proposed Family Fees Schedules: 12 4 Introduction he Ministry of Justice is introducing a new fee framework for fam...

3. EC v ST [2024] NZDT 37 (23 February 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 37 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT ST APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) BC Limited The Tribunal orders: ST is to pay BC Limited $4,539.70 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. The applicant, EC, was travelling north along [road 1] when the front of ST’s vehicle hit the right side of EC’s vehicle....

4. [2011] NZEmpC 26 Benge and others v Air New Zealand [pdf, 259 KB]

   ...Judgment: 29 March 2011 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] This judgment deals with the defendant‟s application for orders requiring the plaintiffs to give further and better particulars of their amended statement of claim of 5 November 2010. The hearing to determine these opposed applications is the culmination of a series of attempts to establish the pleadings before this litigation can go to trial. Despite a lengthy conference with counsel in Chamber...

5. O Ltd v U Ltd & Z Ltd [2023] NZDT 655 (5 December 2023) [pdf, 122 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 655 APPLICANT O Ltd RESPONDENT U Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay O Ltd $3,865.90 by 22 December 2023. Background 1. The claim relates to a [truck] and [trailer] that O Ltd purchased from U Ltd in March 2022. 2. One of the terms of the sale was that U Ltd would obtain a new COF. U Ltd obtain...

6. FD v HO & MO [2024] NZDT 558 (29 July 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 558 APPLICANT FD RESPONDENT HO SECOND RESPONDENT MO The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. FD purchased a campervan from MO for $20,000.00 after viewing an advertisement [online] and after viewing the campervan. FD alleges MO misrepresented the capability of the campervan to negotiate steep hills. FD seeks t...

7. SE v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 456 (17 August 2023) [pdf, 175 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 456 APPLICANT SE RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: D Ltd is to pay SE $550.00 by 31 August 2023. Reasons: 1. In May 2022, SE provided entertainment services to D Ltd. D Ltd deducted bond money from each of her payments and has refused to return the bond. 2. SE attended the hearing. D Ltd did not attend. On the...

8. MM v YY [2023] NZDT 613 (2 November 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 613 APPLICANT MM RESPONDENT YY The Tribunal orders: YY is to pay MM $380.00 on or before the 21st day of November 2023. Reasons: Introduction: 1. MM entered into an agreement with YY to rent a room in her boarding house at $190 per week, to be paid fortnightly. 2. On the 12th of November 2022 MM paid $380 being two week...

9. OM v PR LCRO 118 / 2011 (14 August 2012) [pdf, 89 KB]

   ...was attached to information that Mr OM had sent with his complaint. [2] The complaint was not upheld by the Standards Committee. This review application was made by Mr OM who is referred to as the Applicant. [3] The background is that BAI claimed the Applicant owed it money, and when the Applicant wanted certain repairs done to machinery on his farm, BAI agreed to undertake the repair work providing that an amount of money representing its claim was paid into the trust account...

10. [2015] NZEmpC 113 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 82 KB]

    ...Judgment: 15 July 2015 INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT (NO 11) OF CHIEF JUDGE G L COLGAN [1] By memorandum filed on 7 July 2015 the plaintiff seeks an adjournment of the fixture of her case scheduled for 10-14 (inclusive) August 2015. Such a request should both be by interlocutory application and, in the particular circumstances of this case, by leave. [2] Essentially the plaintiff says that her case is not ready for trial and, in addition, its hearing will require more than...