12990 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 328 APPLICANT EB RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons Background [1] EB, represented by his son KB, after having suffered earthquake damage to his house during 2010- 2012, reached a cash settlement with his insurer, T Ltd, represented by MG. Subsequently, in [case citation redacted] the Court of Appea...
...signed a sale and purchase agreement for a car. KT says his ability to purchase the car was dependent on his parents helping him finance it. He was unable to secure the finance he needed, and the next day he phoned F Ltd to cancel the contract and request the return of the deposit. F Ltd declined to provide a refund. 2. KT claims the sum of $500.00 for the return of his deposit. The issue to be determined is whether KT is entitled to a refund of the deposit. 3. A deposit is a sur...
...$13,291.59 for repairs to the retaining wall ($9,830.20), the repairs to the fence ($4,378.60 (1/2 the total cost)) and repairs to the garage floor ($792.87). Also claimed is 10% on the total of $13,294.59 is the cost of inflation over the last year. The applicants seek a further $5,000 for compensation for stress suffered. 3. The following issues are to be determined: a) What are the relevant terms of the insurance policy? b) Is the damage and repairs to the retaining wall, fenc...
...section from the respondents, QQ and SS. The applicants claim that the respondents were in breach of two provisions of the sale and purchase agreement, and claim compensation for their resulting losses. [2] The agreement was in the standard [redacted] form. The clauses that the applicants claimed were breached by the respondents were cll 6.1 and 7.1. These state, so far as is relevant: 6.1 The vendor shall not be bound to point out the boundaries of the property except that on the sa...
...aspect of the complaint is that Mr Mudaliar had an agreement with the complainant for the original application, but did not do anything to establish the professional engagement for the two section 61 requests. [2] Mr Mudaliar did take issue with the claim he failed to notify the complainant when the second section 61 request failed; but otherwise has not challenged the allegations in a specific way. The Tribunal has accordingly examined the material to establish the facts, and then consi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1490 APPLICANT MC RESPONDENT OJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. OJ Ltd is to pay MC the sum of $4,495.00 on or before 4 November 2020. 2. The counter claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 2 March 2020 MC enrolled in a course to become a Personal Trainer run by OJ Ltd. The course was due to commence on 23 March with an i...
...initially claimed the sum of $30,000.00 for remedial work, replacement of the califont and legal fees. However, between the first and second hearing both parties carried out work on the property, and the landscaping was completed as passed by Council. The applicants now reduce their claim accordingly. 3. S Ltd attended the first but not the second hearing. The absence of a party does not prevent a claim from going ahead. 4. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. Was the c...
...20/4/2007 Policy documents (including special terms an and an updated quote for the 250% loading) were sent to BN and IN for signing, which BN and IN did. 24/4/2007 The policy was issued. 24/4/2014 BN calls X Ltd to update his address details and requests a quote to reduce the cover to retain the current premium. 28/4/2014 X Ltd send a quote to BN to reduce life cover. This is not returned or discussed. 24/4/2015 BN calls X Ltd to express his unhappiness at the increasing premium...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 801 APPLICANT O Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT NH SECOND RESPONDENT OT The Tribunal orders: NH and OT are jointly and severally liable to pay $308.04 to O Ltd on or before 15 November 2024. Reasons 1. NH engaged O Ltd, via the trades-platform, to attend to a faulty hot water cylinder at the premises of the OT. 2. BO of O Ltd a...
...there was not sufficient time for that claim to be processed and heard with this one. Consequently, it will have to be heard as a separate claim at a later date. Referee: K Rendall Date: 22 January 2021 Page 2 of 2 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that 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 r...