13118 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court: Case number: [2022] NZDT 282 APPLICANT I Ltd RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. I Ltd (Mr & Mrs I) were interested in upgrading the tip truck that they use in their business. 2. They saw a [redacted] truck that N Ltd had advertised on [Website]. They contacted N Ltd about the truck, and...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 437 APPLICANT Q Ltd RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: D Ltd is to pay the sum of $17,737.55 to Q Ltd on or before Thursday 6 June 2024. Reasons: 1. On 4 March 2021, QM (now called Q Ltd, the tenant) and D Ltd (the landlord) signed an agreement to lease premises at [address], for a term of two years from 1 May 2021. The tenant...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 104 APPLICANT QU RESPONDENT GD Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 19 June 2022, QU purchased flights to and accommodation in [Country] and [City 1] from GD Ltd and ‘DN travel insurance’, with his plans to then continue his own private arrangements in South East Asia. Within a week of arriving...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 340 APPLICANT TN RESPONDENT T Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TN bought a new phone from T Ltd through their website. The purchase price of the new phone included a trade in value for TN’s old T Ltd phone. The estimated trade in amount was $220.00. When TN sent his old ph...
...Ltd for it. That is essentially ZI’s claim – his company has issued a quotation to install an ORG as per the building consent plans which involves, at this point, other associated work – the quotation is for $10,000.00 plus GST but as he has claimed $10,000.00, the amount able to be considered is limited to $10.000.00. 4. There is more to this dispute. ZI says that when he contacted the real estate agent, the agent gave him the number of the drainlayer who had completed the dr...
...the Court to have the proceedings transferred to adjudication under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 (“WHRS Act”). This was confirmed in the reserve judgment of Judge P S Rollo on 14 March 2003. 1.6 The Owners made an application to the Weathertight Homes Resolution Service (“WHRS”), and their claim was deemed to be an eligible claim under the WHRS Act. The Owners then filed a Notice of Adjudication under s.26 of the WHRS Act on 27 November 2003....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 158 APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT MB Ltd The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. Brief Details of Claim 1. On 13 July 2022 LI delivered an oil painting by FDX to XT of MB Ltd for auction on 17 July 2022. The item was photographed and included in MB Ltd’s online catalogue, describing the painting as “Very early FDX Ori...
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2025] NZDT 7 APPLICANT BH RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. On or by 10 February 2025, M Ltd is to pay BH $8,057.56, calculated as: a. Garage roof $7,337.00 b. Drip tray $ 431.25 c. Agreed settlement for rangehood $ 289.31 Total $8,057.56 2. On or by 10 February 2025, M Ltd is to reissue its invoice describing the brand model and identification number of t
MOJ0052-JUNE13_AAreAs of lAw – MĀori lAnd/AppellAte Court, wAitAngi tribunAl AppendiX PagE 1 / 2 additional Case Example Form – Waitangi Tribunal You will need to complete this form for each case example you provide. If you print and complete please make copies of this case example form as necessary. If you complete the form online, please save each example on your computer and repeat as necessary before printing. inquiry or Case details Name or inquiry number Date D D / M M...
...number of factors such as the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, any prejudice resulting from the delay and the apparent merits of the proposed challenge. Background [6] Before the Authority, Ms Rebecca Hodges and Ms Tui Allen (the applicants before the Authority) claimed that they had each been unjustifiably dismissed from their employment with Dynamic Meats at Hastings. The Authority consolidated both claims for one investigation meeting. However, Dynamic Meats did...