12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 185 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT FH The Tribunal orders: 1. KQ is to pay $350.00 to FH on or before 14 November 2022. Reasons: 2. This matter has been part heard and this order should be read in conjunction with the orders dated 11 May 2022 and 2 August 2022. 3. KQ and FQ entered into a contract for the hire of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2022] NZDT 293 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT EX The Tribunal orders: EX to pay $17,778.00 to BD by the 7th September 2022. Reasons: 1. BD claims that EX did not build his deck correctly. He seeks a refund of $20,000 being the amount he paid to EX to build the deck and the cost of materials. 2. There have been in total 3 hearings of this matter, t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 4 APPLICANT AQ and BQ RESPONDENT DD Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. Neither party owes the other any sum. Reasons 1. AQ and BQ purchased a W kitset garage. GD, from DD Ltd had undertaken other building work for AQ and BQ and undertook the installation of the garage. 2. During the job, various issues arose. After
...actual value of the car and the expected value of the car in the condition as represented. The buyer can also recover any foreseeable consequential losses. 11. The estimated value of the car if sold for parts is $600 to $650. The higher figure is applicable since the buyer bears the onus of proving the amount of his claim. Assuming the purchase price represented the value if the car had no issues, the loss in value was $3,150.00. 12. I have allowed the claim for $65.22 for the first diag...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1486 APPLICANT FB Ltd RESPONDENT NG RESPONDENT INSURER BJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: NG is to pay FB Ltd $17,658.17 on or before the 30 April 2021. Reasons [1] On the 14 October 2020 BJ Ltd’s insured NG collided with a power pole owned by FB Ltd t/a FO (“FO”) forcing its replacement. NG’s liability is no...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 212 APPLICANT PI RESPONDENT XU The Tribunal orders: XU is to pay $500.00 to PI on or before 31 July 2022. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. On 3 April 2022, XU placed the winning bid on a Trademe $1 reserve auction to purchase a 1978 [Vehicle] for $19,200 from PI, a dealer. 2. XU was unable to come up wit...
...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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 708 APPLICANT FT RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. FT originally claimed $15,165.75 for the cost of replacing a retaining wall damaged by X Ltd’s concreting subcontractor. The claim was amended during the hearing process to $13,268.25. 2. Both parties attended the hearing. Background 3....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 1 APPLICANT IQ RESPONDENT UF The Tribunal orders: 1. IQ is to hold the [vehicle] for a period of 14 days. In that period, if UF can advise IQ if he wishes to do so that he will take back the car and pay to IQ the purchase price in return of $4,760.00. 2. If IQ is not advised of this election in 14 days, then IQ ma...
...NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU [2022] NZEmpC 39 EMPC 402/2021 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for a strike out order BETWEEN KARL MALCOLM First Plaintiff AND CAROL WARING Second Plaintiff AND PHILLIPPA MCDERMOTT Third Plaintiff AND REBECCA MILDREN Fourth Plaintiff AND...