12922 items matching your search terms
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...
...LCRO 243 /2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 5 BETWEEN MR IC Of [North Island] Applicant AND MR QX Of [North Island] Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] Mr IC (the Applicant) filed complaints against Mr QX (the Respondent) which were...
...SD APPLICANT TD APPLICANT RD RESPONDENT EL SECOND RESPONDENT LL The Tribunal orders: The claim made by TD, RD and SD against EL and LL is dismissed. Reasons: 1. RD became engaged to LL in January 2021. The applicants incurred engagement expenses in an amount of $12,224.75. The applicants claim that EL agreed to meet half the engagement expenses. Mr EL and Mr LL dispute that such an agreement was made. The applicants claim $6,112.37 from the respo...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 56 QS SQ The Tribunal orders: SQ is to pay QS $790.00 on or before 21 March 2023. Reasons 1. QS responded to an advertisement placed on TradeMe by SQ for a room in a house to rent. He met with SQ on 27 November 2022 and discussed the property. They travelled to the property for QS to look at it and they agreed tha
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 64 APPLICANT JY RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background [2] The applicant took his vehicle to the respondent for a warrant of fitness (WOF) inspection on 23 November 2022. T...
...$75.00. She emailed Q Ltd suspecting the letter was a scam and was informed of her breach with photographic evidence. 2. Q Ltd subsequently have continued to charge administration/ recovery fees of $75.00 every two weeks. At the time of filing the claim, JT had paid Q Ltd $95.00 and had requests for payment from Q Ltd for $325.00. JT seeks an order that she is not liable to Q Ltd for $325.00. 3. Q Ltd did not appear at the hearing, nor were there any submissions filed in response to the...