12972 items matching your search terms
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 423 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. T Ltd is to pay the sum of $2,499.00 to N Ltd on or before Monday, 4 September 2023. 2. Once T Ltd complies with order 1, the [Satellite Dome] that T Ltd sold to N Ltd (which is already in T Ltd’s possession) will immediately return to T Ltd’s ownership and it may dispose...
...of the [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN LC and CM Applicant AND JP Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr LC and Ms CM (the applicants) have applied for a review of a decision by the [City] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) to take no further action in respect of their complaint concerning the conduct of the respondent, Mr JP. Background [2] On 24 March 20...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 889 BETWEEN EA APPLICANT AND UZ LTD AS AN AGENT FOR UZU RESPONDENT Date of Order: 12 August 2015 Referee: Referee Smallbone ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that UZ Ltd is to pay $8,318.08 to EA by 5pm on Thursday 20 August 2015. Following payment to EA, UZ Ltd may arrange for the collection of the dismantled damaged engine from EA at UZ Ltd’s cost. Facts [1] Th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 7 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 101 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT KB The Tribunal orders: 1. KB is to pay N Ltd $6,704.63 by 20 March 2024. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Background 1. KB owns a [sailboat], B. 2. B was on a leased mooring in [Bay]. 3. In November 2022 the owner of the mooring told KB that he required the mooring for his own use....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 157 APPLICANT MO and SO RESPONDENT RESPONDENT INSURER QC Ltd WJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. MO and SO engaged QC Ltd trading as TI in August 2020 to construct a minor dwelling on their property to the rear of the existing house. Also to the rear of the
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 243 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: K Ltd is to pay to BI $30,000.00 on or before 5:00pm on Friday 2 June 2023. Reasons 1. On 31 May 2021, BI entered into an agreement to purchase a house under construction from K Ltd. On 19 July 2021, BI noticed issues with the building work and raised his concerns with K Ltd’s rea...
...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
...Self-represented Adviser: Self-represented 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The primary allegations against [the adviser], are that she used unlicensed staff in her office to engage with the client which is work that only a licensed adviser is allowed to perform, and that her work was negligent. [2] The essential issue to consider is whether there is sufficient evidence of those alleged professional violations. BACKGROUND [3] [the adviser] is a licensed immigration adviser. She is a...
...Vegar then applied to have the determination set aside and the investigation reopened on the basis she had no previous knowledge of the proceedings; that she was not Mr Pietras’s employer, and she did not know him. The Authority granted the application to reopen the proceedings.4 [17] In a telephone directions conference with the Court, Ms Vegar advised that, although she had visited family in New Zealand last summer, she had resided in Spain for some years, where her focus was r...
LCRO 184/2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 BETWEEN FB Of [North Island] Applicant AND WAIKATO-BAY OF PLENTY STANDARDS COMMITTEE 2 Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] The review Applicant is FB (the Prac...