Search Results

1. Where to file documents

   You can file your application in the District Court: closest to the defendant’s home or place of business, if that is in New Zealand if the defendant does not live or carry on business in New Zealand (you can choose which District Court) closest to where the actions that led to the claim happened closest to where the property which the claim is about is located. To make sure you file your documents in the correct place, refer to rule 5.1 of the District Court Rules All subsequent application...

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court >
   3. Going to court without a lawyer >
   4. Representing yourself in a civil case in the District Court

2. LCRO 92/2016 ZA v YB (7 January 2019) [pdf, 234 KB]

   ...appreciated, if acceptance is communicated orally, or if we give advice or take (further) action, our ongoing engagement will be on the basis set out in this letter and the material which accompanies it. [21] Mrs YB had asked Mr ZA for advice and requested he write to the bank. In addition, Mrs YB had sent emails to Mr ZA on 20 July 2015, 21 July 2015, 31 July 2015 and 3 August 2015. Mr ZA considered that Mrs YB had instructed him to act. [22] The Committee “accepted that Mr ZA h...

3. EO v UO & U Ltd [2023] NZDT 257 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...including structural rust. NZ Transport Agency investigated EO’s complaint against U Ltd for issuing the WOF despite the van’s extensive issues and upheld her complaint. Action was taken against U Ltd for issuing the WOF. 3. In a separate Tribunal claim by Ms L, EO and Mr O were ordered to pay $17,066.00 to Ms L by the Tribunal in a decision dated 7 March 2022, as damages for misrepresentation in relation to the WOF for the van. 4. EO claimed that the WOF should not have been is...

4. LE v BI [2024] NZDT 31 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 139 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 31 APPLICANT LE RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: 1. BI is to pay the sum of $180.00 to LE on or before Friday, 1 March 2024. 2. Once BI has made the payment set out in order 1 above, LE is to make the [Brand] baby carrier that she purchased from BI reasonably available for collection by BI. BI (or his nominated agent) is to collect th...

5. 14 April 2025 Masters v Hastings District Council [pdf, 162 KB]

   ...vacate the hearing. If settlement is reached prior to the hearing, please notify the Tribunal immediately. 1. SCHEDULING AND HEARING FEES The scheduling fee is incurred when the proceeding is scheduled for a substantive hearing or any other application or proceeding (apart from an interlocutory application). The scheduling fee is not refundable if the hearing is no longer required. The scheduling fee for setting a matter down before the Land Valuation Tribunal is $1,170.00. The...

6. XD Ltd v QC [2023] NZDT 607 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 256 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 8 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 607 APPLICANT XD Ltd RESPONDENT QC The Tribunal orders: 1. QC is to pay XD Ltd $5675.18 on or by 1 December 2023. Reasons 2. QC and [his wife] built a new house in [suburb]. Unfortunately, the original builder went into liquidation before the house was completed, leaving them with some $200,000 of work paid for, but for...

7. ET & JT v AQ [2024] NZDT 295 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...damage to [car 1]. [car 1] was a high performance car and therefore expensive to repair. 13. The repairers’ costs was $19,812.96 (including the excess). J Ltd have also added a tow charge and storage totalling $250 plus GST. The total amount claimed is therefore $20,100. 46. 14. AQ/MQ had no issues in relation to the costs. Conclusion 15. For the reasons above AQ must pay J Ltd, $20,100.46. Referee: Ms Gayatri Jaduram Date: 13 May 2024 Page 3 of 3...

8. BN & UG v EI [2023] NZDT 234 (22 May 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...BN saw EI’s advertisement on Facebook for a mare she was selling called X. BN purchased X from EI for $250.00 including transport, as a project to train up and sell. On 27 April 2022, BN sold X to UG (BN and UG are referred to together as “the Applicants”). 2. Some months later, UG discovered that X was in foal by which time the pregnancy was quite advanced. The pregnancy did not go well, and X needed specialist care and there was no suitable care on the [City 1]. UG sent X for sp...

9. SO Ltd v NI & KI [2023] NZDT 189 (15 May 2023) [pdf, 117 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 189 APPLICANT SO Ltd RESPONDENT NI RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. SO Limited (hereafter SO Ltd) claimed that KI and NI received an unauthorised payment of $5,000 when KI resigned as a director and shareholder of SO Ltd and sought an order for its return. 2. KI...

10. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

    Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 662 APPLICANT EM RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In November 2023 EM’s secondary-school-age son BM responded to a [online selling website] advertisement and purchased a [Car] from KU for $10,300.00. EM says while BM worked hard after school to save and pay for this vehicle, EM himself has suffered a loss becau...