12870 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 47 APPLICANT KX NX RESPONDENT GV LtdGV LtdGV Ltd The Tribunal orders: NX is added as an applicant to the application with the consent of the parties. GV LtdGV Ltd is to pay KX and NX the sum of $210.00 within 21 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. In or about May 2021, NX entered into a contrac
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 122 APPLICANT TE RESPONDENT EX The Tribunal orders: Both claims are dismissed. Reason 1. TE and EX share a boundary. TE claims EX cut a communications cable causing damage to his home automation system including the electric gate control and lighting. EX says TE cut down trees on EX’s side of the boundar...
Introduction to Weathertight Homes Tribunal Guide to adjudication of claims under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 https://www.govt.nz/ http://www.justice.govt.nz/ Introduction to Weathertight Homes Tribunal Guide to adjudication of claims under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 The purpose of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal is to provide speedy, flexible, cost-effective resolution for leaky home claims brought under the Weathertight Homes Res
The person who makes the application or claim is called the applicant. A person who has a claim made against them is called the respondent. When the Copyright Tribunal gets the application We’ll contact the applicant to confirm we’ve received their application. We’ll also let the respondent know an application has been filed against them. When the chairperson decides the case is ready for a pre-hearing telephone conference, we’ll contact the people involved (the parties) and arrange a ti...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 34 APPLICANT J Ltd RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay the sum of $983.25 to J Ltd by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. J Ltd claim a man, now known to be TQ, entered their premises on 8 November 2023 and purported to be interested in buying a car. When TQ asked to test drive [car 1], he presented a drivers lice...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 78 APPLICANT SG RESPONDENT UT The Tribunal orders: UT is ordered to pay SG the sum of $1,476.00. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 17 March 2023. Reasons: 1) There was no appearance of the respondent, and the hearing proceeded in his absence. The applicant, and the respondent, are the owners of adjoining propertie...
...MT RESPONDENT MI The Tribunal orders: The claim by BX and MT against MI is partially proved. MI is to pay BX and MT the sum of $1,842.50 on or by 5:00pm on 14 February 2024. Reasons 1. In 27 December 2022 BX and MT (the applicants) entered into a sale and purchase agreement with MI (the respondent). The applicants now bring a claim against the respondent for $7,840.83. 2. At the outset of the hearing the respondent accepted that she would pay for the remova...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 643 APPLICANT DE RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) In September 2021 the applicant bought a vehicle from the respondent-trader. The price paid was $23,380.00. This included a 2 year mechanical warranty at a cost of $1,480.00. 2) The applicant says that since he bought the vehicle it “has been un...
...Reasons: 1. BE and TE hired NX Photography (“NXP”) for their wedding in November 2017. They chose a photography package offered by NXP and added a fusion video to be created. This cost an extra $800. 2. To obtain the fusion video, the Applicants had to select a hundred photographs from the wedding and NXP would use a particular software to create the fusion video. 3. BE and TE reached out to NX, the owner of NXP, in March 2024, some six and a half years after the wedding t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1693 APPLICANT CC RESPONDENT LL T/a TW The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 26 February 2021, after seeing an advertisement on Trade Me, CC agreed to purchase a Rotweiller puppy from LL at a price of $2,600.00. He paid a “non-refundable” deposit of $500.00. They agreed that the balance would...