12972 items matching your search terms
LCRO 284/2011 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 BETWEEN RT Applicant AND MX Respondent The names and indentifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] This is an application for review of a decision of the Wellington Standards Committee 1 which consi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 138 APPLICANT TT RESPONDENT BQ The Tribunal orders: BQ is to pay TT $6,539.00 within 28 days. [1] BQ engaged TT to do the electrical work for a house in [Suburb 1] which he, BQ, was building for himself. A dispute arose between the parties, and TT did not complete the work. TT’s claim is for $9,585.00, the value of the wor...
...MB 337 IN THE MĀORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND TAITOKERAU DISTRICT A20150003204 CJ 2015/24 UNDER Section 45, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Motatau 3H2 Block BETWEEN ALLAN SHANE PEITA Applicant Hearing: 11 December 2018, 2018 Chief Judge’s MB 1029 - 1043 (Heard at Whangarei) Judgment: 30 April 2019 JUDGMENT OF DEPUTY CHIEF JUDGE C L FOX 2019 Chi...
...REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Self-represented Complainant: R Sathiyanathan, counsel Adviser: No appearance 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The complainant is TA, who engaged the services of Ying Tian (aka Tina Qin). Ms Tian made numerous applications on behalf of the complainant which were unsuccessful. For a prolonged period, she pretended to be acting for him but was not actually undertaking any work on his behalf. As a result of her conduct, the complainant’s immigratio
...extended to the [property one] kitchen). 13. LS says that once the kitchens were installed (to the extent they were) AI and YK agreed at one point to her proposed values of $1900.00 (for [property two]) and $500.00 (for [property one]), but the applicants deny this. AI and YK have provided a third-party invoice that shows that the cost of the engineered stone bench-top alone exceeded these amounts so I consider it unlikely that they agreed to LS’s figures. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_...
...had been withdrawn, and the Court made appointments in favour of another person who had been proposed by the Applicant. [9] The Applicant was much offended by the allegations against him, particularly those involving financial matters. He claimed to have had incurred 3 significant legal expenses in respect of court applications which he noted were not successful in the event, contending that it was known to the Practitioner to have no prospect of success, adding that it...
IBEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO 0 AOTEAROA IN THE MATTER AND BETWEEN AND AND Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC OO.;t of the Resource Management Act 1991 of an application for costs by s 274 parties under s 285 of the Act AB LOGISTICS LIMITED (ENV-201-AKL-171) Appellant NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL Respondent COCAVO LIMITED, ELEVATE HEALTH AND FITNESS LIMITED, CONNECT, NZ COURIERS LIMITED, PERFORMA LINK, POST HASTE LIMITED, SURPLUS DIRECT LIMITED...
...the vehicle that have different circumferences cause strain on AWD system and can lead to failure of the AWD (transmission) system. HU and DU were unaware it was necessary to replace all four tyres when any tyre need to be replaced. They have requested the Tribunal to order compensation from I Ltd and CJ Ltd. Did I Ltd mislead the applicants regarding replacement tyres for the AWD vehicle? 2. Section 10 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 provides that “no person shall, in trade, e...
...an order against another company when the company he contracted with has been identified and ordered to pay. The application for rehearing is therefore declined. Referee Perfect Date: 17 November 2023 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 rehe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 738 APPLICANT OD RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: Q Ltd is to pay $2300.00 to OD on or before 13 November 2024; and OD is to return the faulty laptop to Q Ltd on or before 13 November 2024. Reasons 1. OD purchased a gaming laptop for $2300.00 on 16 August 2024. As soon as he unboxed the unit it was running extremely h...