12946 items matching your search terms
LCRO 11/2012 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 5 BETWEEN CCO (UB) Applicant AND OZ Respondent DECISION Background [1] The Practitioner, OZ, undertook work for UB’s business, CCO (the Applicant) throughout November 2010 to February 2011, but did not complete the work contemplated by the retainer a...
...2023, the directions were issued to the Pae Tukutuku to ascertain whether Mr Nikora wanted the Court to forego the legal analysis from Counsel to Assist. [6] By way of email sent on 6 March 2023, Mr Nikora confirmed that he wished to forego the request for legal advice, supporting a decision being made based on the 292 Waiariki MB 8 information before the Court, and sought to extend the breadth of information he sought from the TUT. [7] This decision is therefore based on the...
...application for declaration under s311 of the Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN TUDOR HENRY CARADOC- DAVIES HAMISH FORRESTER GRAEME DESMOND GRANGER JOHN EDGAR SAYCE PARKER (ENV-2017-CHC-000032) (ENV-2017-CHC-000033) (ENV-2017-CHC-000034) Applicants AND STEVEN ROBERT CLEARWATER, JACQUELINE ANN CLEARWATER and BRIAN PATRICK HAILES as TRUSTEES OF THE PENINSULA HOLDINGS TRUST STEVE CLEARWATER CONTRACTING LIMITED Respondents AND DUNEDIN CITY COUN...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1547 APPLICANT UU RESPONDENT UX The Tribunal hereby orders: UX is to pay the sum of $385.00 to UU on or before Wednesday 9 October 2019. Reasons: 1. On 16 June 2019, UU purchased a set of four wheels from UX via Trade Me. The auction stated, “Good condition original oz Rally Wheels as used on subaru and Toyota....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 590 APPLICANT LQ RESPONDENT LE The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. LQ purchased a [vehicle] from LE in December 2023 after seeing the car advertised on Trade Me. He paid $9,700 after meeting LE and taking the car for a test drive, but within a few days of purchase a dashboard light came on – diagnosis initially sh...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 259 APPLICANT SU RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The Tribunal orders: G Ltd is to pay the sum of $615.64 to SU on or before Wednesday, 3 April 2024. REASONS 1. In 2008, SU purchased from a third-party supplier a [cooktop] (“the Cooktop”). The Cooktop failed in June 2020 when the main dual element blew. SU purchased the r...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 48 APPLICANT LG RESPONDENT OE The Tribunal orders: 1. OE is to pay LG $12,250.00 on or before 20 February 2023. 2. LG is to make available for collection by OE the spa pool she purchased from OE, provided that: i. collection shall occur at a reasonable time and date to be agreed between the parties; and ii. such da...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 128 APPLICANT QN RESPONDENT NI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In May 2019, NI engaged QN to do some painting on a holiday house she and her husband owned in [Address]. QN made some suggestions about other repair work that he could do and NI agreed for him to do that work as well. 2....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 186 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. EC was a customer of U Ltd and among other things had a house insurance policy with U Ltd. EC’s house comprises two units, his home and a separately tenanted flat downstairs. In 2022 U Ltd changed the house insurance policy f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 73 APPLICANT UD RESPONDENT CE APPLICANT'S INSURER B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. At the hearing, UD was represented by his son CD. CD was the driver of the vehicle involved in a collision with CE. CD alleges he pulled up behind CE and was in traffic stopped on the [Street] in...