18392 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 775 APPLICANT KD & DF RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: L Ltd is to pay KD and DF the sum of $28,761.50 immediately. Reasons 1. This was a claim by the applicant for the sum of $28,761.50, being a remedial repair cost required to their home, after the respondents had undertaken recladding restoration work (“the work”).
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 776 APPLICANT US RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay US $5,000.00 on or before 6 November 2024. Reasons 1. US purchased a spa from B Ltd in 2017. In December 2023 a technician came to look at a fault with the spa heater and discovered the frame of the spa was entirely rotten. B Ltd gave a repair estimate of $6,00
...District Court transferred the claim to the Tribunal. 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Was the debt forgiven in July 2020? b. If not, is E Ltd entitled to claim $30,000.00? Was the debt forgiven in July 2020? 4. The general principles of the law of contract apply to this dispute. A contract is an agreement that the parties intend to be legally bound by. It involves an exchange of promises and becomes binding when the parties agree on clear and certain terms. The terms of a cont...
...UT’s tenants turning on and off the edge of the driveway are also contributing to the damage. 4. All parties agree and understand that occupiers of land are bound to accept water flowing naturally onto their land from higher ground. 5. The law of private nuisance requires an applicant to prove another (or others) has interfered with their use or enjoyment of their land and there is resulting physical damage to their land and it is unreasonable to tolerate such damage. 6. The...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 768 APPLICANT DO RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: J Ltd is to pay DO $3,394.58 by no later than 3rd December 2024. Reasons 1. The Applicant says that he purchased a vehicle from the Respondent and the right headlight of the vehicle is not working. The Applicant states that he provided ample time for the Respondent to fix th
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 789 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT EH SECOND RESPONDENT OH THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT DH THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. T Ltd and EH and OH own adjoining rural properties at [settlement] in [region]. T Ltd’s property is used for forestry and
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 817 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT UB The Tribunal orders: Application dismissed. Reasons 1. On 29 April 2024, the applicant purchased a [camper van] from the respondent for $30,000.00. 2. He is now claiming reimbursement of the $30,000.00 purchase price. Background 3. The vehicle had been advertised [online]on Trade Me for $35K.
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 819 APPLICANT TU RESPONDENT CH The Tribunal orders: The claim by TU against CH is proved. CH is to pay TU the sum of $1,040.00 on or before 5:00 pm on 30 November 2024. TU is to make the fridge available for pick up by CH after 30 November 2024 and before 10 December 2024. If CH does not pick up the fridge by 10 December 2024 then he is
...2025. [4] On 1 April 2025, Mr Hack for the Corporation submitted that there was unlikely to be prejudice to the Corporation caused by the delay in filing, and the Corporation did not oppose leave being granted to file the appeal late. Relevant law [5] Section 151 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) provides: (1) An appellant brings an appeal by sending a notice of appeal to, or filing a notice of appeal in, a specified registry. ... (3) The notice must be received...
...determination of a substantive application.2 When deciding whether there is a serious question, I have to consider whether the substantive application demonstrates a tenable cause of action taking into account the allegations, and questions of fact and law.3 [10] Ms Witana has not filed a substantive application. Her counsel have only filed the interim injunction application. I accept that an interlocutory injunction application can be filed before the substantive proceeding in t...