13020 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 119 APPLICANT ET RESPONDENT MC SECOND RESPONDENT DC The Tribunal orders: The claim by ET is struck out. With respect to the counterclaim by MC and DC, ET is to pay $560.00 to MC and DC by the 5th September 2022. Reasons The claim by ET 1. ET claims from MC and DC for a contribution of $1248.00 tow...
...COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: 22 February 2022 Held at: Dunedin/Ōtepoti Appearances: The appellant represented himself C Hlavac for the respondent Judgment: 3 March 2022 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for costs - s 148, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 5 March 2021 and relates to costs awarded to Mr Alves in respect of that review hearing. Background...
...Judgment: 06 June 2013 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D J AMBLER 60 Taitokerau MB 79 Introduction [1] This decision addresses whether the second respondent, Rio Greening, is entitled to pursue a counter-claim against the Māori Trustee after the Māori Trustee has withdrawn his application. Background [2] The Māori Trustee brought two applications before the Court. Although the two applications proceeded in tandem, this decision is onl...
...District Court [2023] NZDT 54 APPLICANT TE APPLICANT TT RESPONDENT ST The Tribunal orders: The claim by TE and TT against ST is struck out for want of jurisdiction. Reasons 1. The parents of TE and TT (the applicants) died “intestate”. The applicants now bring a claim against ST who is their sibling (the respondent) for funeral costs for their mother in the sum of $11,870.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Does the Disputes Tribuna...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 539 APPLICANT OQ FIRST RESPONDENT QM and KM SECOND RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The applicant’s claim and the second respondent’s cross- claim are dismissed. Reasons Application 1. The applicant has applied for an order that the resp...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 377 APPLICANT P Ltd RESPONDENT V Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. [1] P Ltd, represented by directors UI and OD, claim from V Ltd, represented by director CJ, $1090.20 for drainage inspection camera work that was provided by P Ltd. It is not disputed that the work was done, but V Ltd considers the circumstances are such that it...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 180 BETWEEN ADF APPLICANT AND ZWU Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 19 June 2013 Referee: Referee Edison ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is transferred to the District Court pursuant to s 36(2) of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988. Facts [1] ADF claims that her former accountant, ZWU Ltd, was negligent in filing a GST return for a tax re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1630 APPLICANT MX RESPONDENT BO SECOND RESPONDENT KO The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim by MX against BO and KO to have the trees on the O’s property removed is struck out. 2. The claim by MX against BO and KO for the costs of having roots removed and for clearing leaves and tree litter from the drain besid...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 258 APPLICANT DD RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay $700.00 to DD on or before 30 January 2023. Reasons 1. DD paid $2700.00 to B Ltd (‘B LTD’) in April 2018 as 50% part-payment for installation of a balustrade. Work was to commence in about 6 weeks. However, DD then requested a further quota...
...failure to comply with the 20-working daytime limit must be treated as a decision of the agency to refuse the IPP6 request. [3.3] The personal information request went unanswered until the Privacy Commissioner’s involvement in August 2019, with the requested information being provided on 28 August 2019. [4] The Department has admitted there has been an interference with Ms Cook’s privacy and agrees that a declaration of interference with privacy should be made in the circumstan...