12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 202 APPLICANT DN RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: The claim by DN is dismissed. Reasons 1. DN bought a pair of shoes in December 2023 with which she is not happy. She seeks a refund and other compensation on the basis the shoes are not of acceptable quality nor properly fitted in breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993....
...is conducting an investigation into possible claims against Fletcher Group Ltd on behalf of some shareholders. Fletcher Construction is part of Fletcher Group. [5] Mayweathers anticipates that documents on the Court’s files may contain information important to its investigation because Mr Johnston was Fletcher Construction’s Financial Controller. Mayweathers understands that an aspect of the claim was about allegations as to the handling of financial information by Fletcher
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1704 APPLICANT TQ and IQ RESPONDENT ZC The Tribunal orders: ZC is to pay the sum of $1634.00 to TQ and IQ on or before 11 January 2022. Reasons 1. TQ and IQ as vendors and ZC as the purchaser entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a property, for which the original settlement date of 31 August 2021 was def
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 704 APPLICANT M Ltd RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: M Ltd is to pay $6537.80 to G Ltd on or before 24 September 2024. Reasons 1. M Ltd purchased a commercial truck from [Vehicle Sales Company]. [Vehicle Sales Company] recommended a local firm to custom-build a deck for the truck and that firm, P Ltd...
...which are entirely speculative and without foundation. (b) The cause of action for defence must be clearly untenable. (c) The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and only in clear cases. This reflects the Court’s reluctance to terminate a claim or defence short of trial. (d) The jurisdiction is not excluded by the need to decide difficult questions of law, requiring extensive argument. (e) The Court should be particularly slow to strike out a claim in any developing area o...
...VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF WELLINGTON [2019] NZEmpC 7 [4 February 2019] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2019] NZEmpC 7 EMPC 7/2017 IN THE MATTER OF of an application for access to court documents by Bartlett Law and Penelope Ryder-Lewis AND IN THE MATTER of a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority BETWEEN CAROLINE SAWYER Plaintiff...
...and we can refuse to release said file unless and until our final invoice is paid in full. [24] On 29 April 2014, Ms ND wrote to (debt collector) seeking a statement of the total debt owed by the respondent and again to the ex-husband’s lawyers requesting his proposal for division of relationship property. 5 [25] There is no evidence on the file that any of Ms ND’s correspondence with Firm A, which was partly by fax and partly by email, was copied to the respondent or to Mr...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1433 APPLICANT NN RESPONDENT TU Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: TU Ltd is to pay the sum of $306.58 directly to NN on or before 14 March 2019. Reasons 1. NN parked at a pay and display carparking site monitored by TU Ltd in December 2018. She purchased a ticket for three hours and placed it on her dashboard....
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 340 APPLICANT NP RESPONDENT KM The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim for refund of the purchase price of the saddle is dismissed. 2. KM will arrange for the return of the saddle to NP by no later than 10 July 2023. KM and NP will share equally in the (reasonable) costs of returning the saddle (as set out in paragraph 19 below). Background 1. The...
...the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement required the respondent to remove asbestos. For that reason, the claim must be dismissed. Referee: B M Smallbone Date: Tuesday, 20 February 2024 Page 2 of 2 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 reh...