12924 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 355 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT NO The Tribunal orders: NO is to either arrange for the return of the [phone] at issue in this dispute or the payment of $1,999 to TD by 30 June 2023. Any return or payment is not to breach any protection order between the parties. Reasons 1. TD wants her [phone] back or payment f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 552 APPLICANT SH RESPONDENT BU The Tribunal orders: 1. BU is to pay SH $1,748.34 by Wednesday 13 August 2024. 2. All other claims are dismissed. Reasons: 1. SH attended the teleconference hearing. Despite emails being sent to the respondent by the registrar asking him to provide a phone number for the hearing, no phone numb...
...management Subpart 1—Purpose and preliminary provisions 3 Purpose 4 4 Overview of Act 4 5 Definitions 5 6 Transitional, savings, and related provisions 6 7 Act binds the Crown 7 Subpart 2—Eligibility criteria and parties to claim before tribunal 8 Application of Act 7 9 Eligibility criteria to bring claim before tribunal 8 10 Bringing claim to tribunal 8 11 Additional parties and removal of parties 8 Subpart 3—Bringing claims to tribunal, ineligible claims, and status of claims under o...
...2016 Legal Aid News is your official regular communication from Legal Aid Services on all matters related to legal aid. Legal Aid News is generally published in the last week of every month. In this issue ... Three fixed fees that may be claimed incorrectly Determining merit in Protection of Personal Property Rights Act 1988 applications Queries Three fixed fees that may be claimed incorrectly A recent internal review identified more clarity is required on the following...
...Respondent Hearing: 29 March 2023 Held at: Wellington/Te Whanganui-a-Tara by AVL Appearances: The Appellant is self-represented H Ifwersen for the Respondent Judgment: 6 April 2023 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for personal injury - s 26, deemed decision – s 58, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 22 March 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an application for...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 123 APPLICANT CL RESPONDENT NV APPLICANT'S INSURER K Ltd RESPONDENT'S INSURER B Ltd The Tribunal orders: NV is to pay directly to K Ltd the sum of $2,360.67 on or before Wednesday, 21 February 2024. K Ltd is to refund to CL $1,000, the insurance excess from the first monies received, or earlier at its discre...
Q-MED (SWEDEN) AUSTRALIA PTY LTD V MACDONALD AK AC 42/08 6 October 2008 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 42/08 ARC 55/08 IN THE MATTER OF a compliance order AND an application for substituted service BETWEEN Q-MED (SWEDEN) AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED Plaintiff AND PAUL DETOMA MACDONALD Defendant Hearing: by submissions filed on 2 October 2008 Judgment: 6 October 2008 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] The plaintiff has had difficulty in serving...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 702 APPLICANT LL RESPONDENT DA The Tribunal orders: This matter is struck out. Reasons: 1. LL has claimed in the Disputes Tribunal for assistance with a drainage problem. LL claims water flows from the neighbour’s property onto his property, resulting in flooding of his garden and an accumulation of mud and debris. LL believes th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 313 APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT ZX The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ZX, a barrister and solicitor, engaged SN as an independent contractor for data entry work in June and July 2023. SN filed a claim against ZX for $360.84, comprising unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44, together with interest, damages for time purs...
...1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 175 APPLICANT IU APPLICANT TM RESPONDENT YZ The Tribunal orders: IU and TM’s claim against YZ is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In July 2016 the applicants paid $8,500.00 to the respondent. The applicants said they were told by the respondent that the respondent would buy luxury goods at a good price which she would give to them. The applicants said they have not received any goods from...