Search Results

1. MH & YH as Trustees of MH Family Trust v W Ltd & OK [2024] NZDT 509 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 153 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 509 APPLICANT MH and YH as Trustees of the MH Family Trust FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT W Ltd SK The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: MH and YH as Trustees of the MH Family Trust are jointly and severally liable to pay $13,305.05 to W Ltd on or before 4 June 2024. Reasons 1. W Ltd...

2. CM v XH LCRO 97 / 2010 (5 July 2011) [pdf, 114 KB]

   LCRO 97/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 4 BETWEEN CM of Auckland Applicant AND XH of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] Complaints were made by Mr CM (the Applicant) against Mr XH (the Practitioner) who ac...

3. Reedy - Waitangi A1A1 (2003) 66 Ruatōria MB 48 (66 RUS 48) [pdf, 857 KB]

   Place: Present: Date: Application No: Subject: Section: Gisborne Judge Wickliffe K Lardelli, Clerk of the Court 1 August 2003 A20000052757 A20000051530 Minute Book: 66 RUA 48 Waitangi A1A1 - Determination of Ownership and Injunction; Succession 18(1 )(a)(c) (h)(i)/93 & 19(1 )(b)/93; 113, 118/93 DECISION Waitangi A1A1 has been the subject matter over which a bitter internecine struggle between different factions of the same family has been fought. It has resulted...

4. BC v SL & XB Ltd [2023] NZDT 568 (14 November 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 568 APPLICANT BC FIRST RESPONDENT SECOND RESPONDENT SL XB Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed against both respondents. Reasons 1. In late May 2023 BC approached SL of XB Ltd to replace the thermostat in her car after she was told by another workshop that was the cause of her car overheating. BC paid X...

5. HA v Z Ltd [2023] NZDT 288 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 288 APPLICANT HA RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay HA $900.00 by 5 August 2023 Background 1. In February 202,1 HA obtained a healthy homes assessment report for a rental property in [Suburb]. 2. The front page of the report has the Z Ltd logo and it states “prepared by [Z Ltd]”. 3....

6. QF Ltd v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 664 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 664 APPLICANT QF Ltd RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: I Ltd is to pay QF Ltd the sum of $776.89 on or before 19 October 2023. Reasons: 1. I Ltd engaged QF Ltd to do some work on the hydraulic hoses for a truck. The work was carried out, but the truck not tested as there were also other tradespeople working on the electrics of...

7. PI v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 745 (22 October 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 745 APPLICANT PI RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. PI purchased [a spa] from B Ltd on 15 May 2020. The purchase price was $11,995. 2. On or around July 2024, PI says a fault occurred with spa and it stopped heating the water. He contacted B Ltd for repairs and was advised that the spa was...

8. NS v BX [2024] NZDT 787 (14 August 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 787 APPLICANT NS RESPONDENT BX The Tribunal orders: BX is to pay NS $6,239.20 on or before 13 September 2024. Reasons Introduction 1. On 30 June 2024, NS purchased [a vehicle] (‘the car’) from BX, who was selling the car on behalf of his son. When NS was driving the car home, he encountered gear box problems. He contacted BX, however, was unable to reach an agreemen

9. BN v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 633 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...state that 4 weeks’ notice of termination of a locum agreement is standard industry practice. 4. NQ says that locum agreements can vary and that he considers one week’s notice to be sufficient particularly given that the contract had only been formed the day before. In fact, 6 days’ notice was provided, given the repudiation occurred at 7.21pm on the Tuesday night and BN was to work the following Tuesday. 5. I find that because a binding contract was formed a week prior to...

10. LI v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 479 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 190 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 479 APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT T Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER X Ltd RESPONDENT'S INSURER Y Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd, or its insurer Y Ltd, shall pay the Applicant $4,700.00 by 27 July 2023. Reasons: 1. The Applicant’s vehicle was damaged beyond economical repair in a collision wit...