12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 200 APPLICANT BL RESPONDENT GG Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. GG Ltd is to pay BL $1479.95 on or before 23 December 2022. 2. Payment is to be by way of direct credit to [account number]. Reasons: 1. BL joined GG Ltd on 10 December 2021 and paid $2330.00 for a one-year membership. She says she joined this gym because...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 247 APPLICANT EG RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: 1. KI is to pay to EG the sum of $1,851.50 on or before 3 July 2023 Reasons 1. In early 2022, KI trimmed some trees on EG’s property to improve his view. 2. EG considered that the work went beyond what was authorised and sought damages of $6,931.50 for the r...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 597 APPLICANT NC Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT TE SECOND RESPONDENT HE The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. TE and HE entered into a residential building contract with NC Ltd – the contract was for a fixed price of $267,652.89. 2. During the course of the building work, variations to the scope occurred f...
...Taking instructions, attending the client • Preparing application for legal aid • Attempting to contact the client • Closing the file • Reporting to client • Reporting to and invoicing Ministry of Justice Note: This fee can only be claimed where initial instructions are not carried through and the file is closed prior to the completion of stage one of any proceedings. It cannot be claimed in conjunction with any other schedule. Application(s)/Order(s) Activity Fe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1409 APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT SS The Tribunal orders: KD’s claim against SS is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 11 September 2020, KD emailed a notice that he wanted to build a fence between his property and the neighbouring properties. He emailed a fencing notice to SS and NS (the respondents) notifying them of his int...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 213 APPLICANT ME RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) On 5 September 2022 the applicant travelled on flight bookings made with the respondent from [City A] to [City B] with the intention of connecting with an ongoing flight to [International City 1]. The applicant says that his...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1678 APPLICANT OH RESPONDENT RI Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: [1] OH rented a three-bedroom apartment managed by RI Ltd (RI) for one week at a cost of $3,030.00. After checking in to the apartment, he discovered that one of the bedrooms had no window. OH delayed raising the is...
...“position in a clear and forthright manner”. [26] Concerning Mrs AR’s request for directions, the Committee explained that its role was to consider and determine complaints about a lawyer’s conduct, “not to provide legal advice” as requested by Mrs AR. 5 Application for review [27] Mrs AR filed her application for review with this Office on 3 May 2018. She seeks (a) a “reprimand” for Mrs NM in respect of [Mrs NM’s] “unprofessional dealings” carrying...
...facts in this case are clear and not in dispute. 1 [This decision is to be cited as: O’Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22. Note publication restrictions.] 2 [2] Mr O’Hagan made a request under IPP 6 for access to certain of his personal information held by the Police. The decision of the Police on that request was delivered 18 working days beyond the expiry of the 20 working days allowed by s 40(1) of the Privacy Act 19...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 12 APPLICANT QH RESPONDENT TU Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT LQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. QH is claiming for a refund of an amount charged by TU Ltd for towing her vehicle from [Address 1] to their yard in [Address 2]. 2. QH states she parked in a parking are...