13118 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 438 APPLICANT GT t/a KX RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay $500.00 to GT by the 10th July 2024. Reasons 1. KX booked accommodation through [accommodation website] with the Respondent, H Ltd, for the nights of 22nd/23rd November 2023 for an employee, TT, to attend a conference in [City]. On the 21st Novemb...
...Alim’s means was not raised by her but by the defendant and the non-parties. Mr O’Brien also said that 2 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 65. Ms Alim disputed the claim that she had failed to comply with the directions of interlocutory judgment (No 6). It was argued that, in any event, the documents sought were not relevant in a legal sense, that they would not assist the Court, and that the time...
...in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (the Bill of Rights Act). 2. The Bill amends the Employment Relations Act 2000 to provide for an employment contract to be terminated by mutual consent between the parties. It enables an employer to request an employee to sign a settlement agreement in which the employee agrees, in return for compensation, to have their contract of employment terminated and not to bring a personal grievance claim against the employer. Pre-termination negoti...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 938 BETWEEN DX APPLICANT AND VC Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 27 January 2017 Referee: Referee M A Urquhart ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VC Ltd is to pay DX $1,596.00 by 5pm on Wednesday 17 February 2016. DX is to return the 2 piece Chaise natural Abaca L/H lounge suite that was purchased from VC Ltd on the 31st January 2013 to the branch of VC Ltd located at...
...conference. Be that as it may, given the Tribunal’s current workload it is unlikely that a teleconference can be arranged inside the next two months. De facto, the Attorney-General is therefore likely (but not guaranteed) to have the two months requested. ORDERS [21] The following orders are made: [21.1] The application by the Attorney-General for an order under s 92D (that the complaint by the plaintiffs be referred back to the Human Rights Commission) is declined. [21.2] The...
GATES V AIR NZ LTD AK AC 15/07 27 March 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 15/07 ARC 40/04 IN THE MATTER OF de novo challenge to determination AND IN THE MATTER OF application for security for costs and/or a stay of proceedings BETWEEN LINDA GATES Plaintiff AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 27 March 2007 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Linda Gates, plaintiff Kevin Thompson, counsel for defendant Judgment: 27 March 2007...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 482 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. S Ltd is to pay HC $1794.42 on or before 5pm on 6 August 2023. 2. HC is not liable to pay S Ltd any further money. 3. If S Ltd deducts any money from HC’s account after today’s date, 6 July 2023, it is to be refunded to him in full within ten workin...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 233 APPLICANT EF FIRST RESPONDENT CQ SECOND RESPONDENT BQ The Tribunal orders: CQ and BQ are jointly and severally liable to pay $506.95 to EF on or before 30 December 2022. Reasons 1. EF signed a sale and purchase agreement with CQ and BQ on 16 December 2021 with settlement on 18 March 2022. During a p...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1682 APPLICANT UM RESPONDENT PH Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] UM bought two house plants from PH Ltd, represented by national retail manager EX. The plants have not survived, and UM claims a refund of their purchase price on the ground that they are neither of acceptable quality nor f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 181 APPLICANT KM APPLICANT LM RESPONDENT BN The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Reasons Background 1. The parties own properties on [Road], a private road on a semi-rural subdivision in [Town]. 2. Five properties in the subdivision have a right of wa...