12972 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 211 APPLICANT K Ltd RESPONDENT SG The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] T Ltd contracted in 2016 to provide telephone services to a company, U Ltd, of which SG was a director. The company was removed some three years later from the Companies Register, and T Ltd continued to provide services for some t...
...2014) Appearances: plaintiff in person A Shaw, counsel for the defendant G Slevin, counsel for Official Assignee Judgment: 11 November 2014 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B A CORKILL Introduction [1] This judgment decides two applications. The first is made by the defendant. The orders it seeks are: (a) That the remedies sought by the plaintiff in paras 55(a), (c) and (d) of his fourth amended statement of claim be dismissed on the basis that these remedie...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1663 APPLICANT BK APPLICANT DU Ltd APPLICANT WL RESPONDENT UX Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BK, WL and DU Ltd as trustees for [the trust] against UX Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. Mr X of UX Ltd (“UX Ltd”) had acted as lawyer for BK and his trusts for a number of years. As part of a pro...
...determination, which he received later that day and which he copied to Mr Gilbert. [8] Mr Gilbert then informed the respondent’s counsel and the Employment Court Registry, by close of business on 11 June 2010, of his intention to file a statement of claim and sought a 7 day extension of time for this purpose. The reason for this extension was said to be that, despite earlier requests for the determination to be sent by email, he had not received a copy of the determination until...
...NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2019] NZEmpC 39 EMPC 250/2017 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application to strike out part of the proceedings BETWEEN GEORGINA RACHELLE Plaintiff AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: G Rachelle, plaintiff in person P...
...result, KX has brought a claim against T Ltd for breaches of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, in particular that the stick was not fit for purpose. She seeks a refund of the purchase price of the hockey stick; $199. Issues 5. to resolve this application, I must consider; a. hat guarantees apply to sporting equipment such as the hockey stick? b. Was the stick fit for purpose? Guarantees 6. The Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 (CGA) implies guarantees into consumer contract...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2023-100-006 BETWEEN AINSLIE MICHELLE BAKER and GARETH CHARLES BAKER Claimants AND AUCKLAND COUNCIL First Respondent AND DETECT A LEAK LIMITED Second Respondent AND ISLAND STYLE LIMITED Third Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER 4 (Removal Applications by Second and Third Respondents) Dated 22 March 2024 Introduction [1] The second and third respondents were both joined to this cl
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1607 APPLICANT DD & TU RESPONDENT BM The Tribunal orders: BM is to pay DD and TU $2,000.00 within 28 days. Reasons [1] The applicants, DD and TU, bought a [Vehicle] via Trademe from BM. The applicants claim that BM misled them about the condition of the vehicle, and they claim the cost of remedying a defect which, they say, should have been disclosed to them at the ti...
...Metro Realty Limited (the agent respondents), the seventh, eighth, and ninth respondents, were named by the claimants as respondents to their claim when the claim was filed on 6 September 2011. These respondents applied for removal and their applications were granted on 16 December 2011. The parties removed now seek costs from the claimants. [2] The claimants are now self-represented but they were represented by counsel, Mr Hitchcock, from the time their claim was file...
...shown in the assessor’s photograph was considered to be repair and maintenance work only. RECONSIDERATION [8] Mr and Mrs Falloon have sought reconsideration of the eligibility decision by the chair of this Tribunal. [9] I have: (a) the application by Mr and Mrs Falloon, including their submissions set out on the application form. (b) the assessor’s report of 19 February 2016. (c) the chief executive’s decision of 6 May 2016. 3 [10] On 7 June 2016, at the req...