12993 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 647 APPLICANT TG RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 23 September 2023 at around 12:50 pm, TG was driving on State Highway 1 north of [Town 1] heading towards [Town 2]. She used the passing lane to overtake another vehicle, and when she pulled back into the left lane, her car hit a large poth...
GETHYN JONES v CHRISTCHURCH EUROPEAN LIMITED NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 4 [4 February 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 4 EMPC 394/2015 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN GETHYN JONES Plaintiff AND CHRISTCHURCH EUROPEAN LIMITED Defendant Hearing: (on the papers filed on 24 December 2015) Counsel: P Moore, advocate for the plaintiff R Thom...
1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 12 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6496 DIMON STERN & HELEN STERN AS TRUSTEES OF THE GROWTH TRUST: - 17A LAGUNA AVE, BROWNS BAY ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Dimon and Helen Stern are the owners of a leaky home. On 17 November 2010...
We provide advice to the Minister of Justice on matters involving miscarriages of justice. This includes applications for compensation for wrongful conviction and detention, and applications for the exercise of the Royal prerogative of mercy. From 1 July 2020, the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) came into force as an independent Crown entity to investigate possible miscarriages of justice. For more information about the CCRC and the remaining role of the Royal prerogative of mercy,...
...[2013] NZEmpC 199 [4 November 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2013] NZEmpC 199 CRC 42/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to file a statement of defence and cross-challenge out of time BETWEEN SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff AND AARON PICKERING Defendant Hearing: On the papers filed by way of memoranda...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2017] NZDT 1675 APPLICANT SC RESPONDENT NI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Insurance Company A RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) Insurance Company B The Tribunal hereby orders: SC is to pay Insurance Company B $3,499.00 on or before 9 January 2018. Reasons [1] SC was following a vehicle being dr...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 628 APPLICANT Q Ltd RESPONDENT SN SECOND RESPONDENT TT The Tribunal orders: SN and TT (jointly and severally) are to pay Q Ltd $1,600.00 by 11 September 2024. Background 1. The claim seeks payment for mortgage broking services. 2. Q Ltd (BS) says that it provided services to SN and TT subject to terms and conditions, including...
...an employee again took inside upon completion, and on 12 October, he completed another 10. When he was finished the last set, he asked TT for his payment. 4. NB says TT became angry and denied that NB had welded 28 chairs. According to NB, TT claimed he welded only 24, and that this was all he would pay for. The angered NB, and he left the premises without being paid, kicking down the stack of chairs he had welded as he left. He did not believe any of the chairs were damaged. He went...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 260 APPLICANT TC RESPONDENT UMA The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. TC purchased a [vehicle] in 2018 from UMA (an unlimited company). Prior to confirming purchase of the car, he was offered unlimited free super-charging for as long as he owned the vehicle. 2. At that time, there were about 13 super-chargers...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 421 APPLICANT KS APPLICANT QS RESPONDENT ZA The Tribunal orders: The Applicant’s claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The Applicants (KS and QS) and the Respondent (ZA) are neighbours. In June 2022, the property manager for ZA’s property (KZ) called ZA and told him KS and QS wished to discuss building a new...