13124 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 8 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1360 APPLICANT TO Limited RESPONDENT TX The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: TO Limited is to pay $7040.48 directly to TX on or before 22 January 2021. Reasons 1. TX engaged TO Ltd (‘TO’) to provide landscaping services at his family’s home. A detailed written scope of works was pr...
...Eleventh Respondent Decision: 16 June 2010 COSTS DETERMINATION Adjudicator: C Ruthe pg. 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 1 APPLICATION BY SEVENTH RESPONDENTS FOR COSTS .............................. 2 The Law............................................................................................................... 2 Did the claim have substantial merit? ........
...TAMARIKI – MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN [2021] NZEmpC 38 [30 March 2021] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2021] NZEmpC 38 EMPC 106/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for special leave to remove matter to the Employment Court BETWEEN SUSAN MARGARET KENNEDY Applicant AND THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF ORANGA TAMARIKI – MINISTRY FOR CHILDREN Respondent Hearing:...
...meet their own costs and expenses. Compare: 2002 No 47 [3] The presumption in s 91 is that costs cannot be awarded unless either of the preconditions is met. Brooker accepts that this is the position. Page 3 [4] The basis of this application is that the allegations were made without substantial merit. THE CLAIM [5] In the particulars of claim filed with the application in this matter the claimant alleged that Brooker owed a duty of care to supply building m...
...Tōpu Trust seeks an order for the alienation of the Waiokura Te Kauae lands from the Parininihi ki Waitotara Incorporation (“PKW”) to the Trust for the benefit of Ngāti Tu hapū, and for the upkeep of Waiokura Marae. In short Mr Manuirirangi requests that the Court order PKW to transfer title of the lands to the Trust by way of gift or alternatively for some nominal amount that may involve an exchange of shares. [2] PKW opposes the application and says that it has wider respo...
...Principle 6, he also interfered with Mr Heidenbluth’s privacy. [6] Mr Schubach, on the other hand, challenges the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hear the case. He relies on two documents signed by Mr Heidenbluth on 8 November 2010 in which (so it is claimed) Mr Heidenbluth agreed that the venue for all legal disputes between Mr Heidenbluth and Mr Schubach is to be Cologne, specifically the Regional Court of Cologne. [7] Before addressing these competing claims reference must be mad...
LCRO 14/2011 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the National Standards Committee BETWEEN MR DG of Auckland Applicant AND MR WV of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Application for review [1] The National Standards Committee declined to uphold complaints...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 9 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1662 APPLICANT NM RESPONDENT B Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER J LTD RESPONDENT INSURER RJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay J LTD $13,350.00 by 23 August 2021. Reasons: 1. NM and J LTD claim compensation of $22,245.02 from B Ltd for damage allegedly caused to NM’s house during the...
...49 of the Act provides that a claimant may apply to the Chair seeking a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the 2 eligibility criteria within 20 working days of receiving notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached submission. The letter from Derek Sharp of...
...holiday pay. It is alleged that the Authority made an order which would unjustly enrich Mr Pan. [6] Juyi accordingly seeks a stay of the order requiring it to pay holiday entitlements pending the hearing of its challenge. It asserts that its claim is strong, and that were it to succeed in the hearing of its challenge having paid the contested sum to Mr Pan, recovery would be problematic because he would be unlikely to voluntarily return the monies paid. [7] Mr Pan filed a notic...