12870 items matching your search terms
Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 594 APPLICANT KE RESPONDENT OT and NT The Tribunal orders: Please also email Application struck out. Reasons 1. This was a claim filed by applicant, as executor of the estate of his late elderly father Q (known as “Q”). 2. On behalf of the estate, the applican...
...Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6698: KYM IRIS MARSDEN ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL [1] Ms Marsden is the owner of a leaky home. On 27 July 2011 she filed an application for an assessor’s report with the Department of Building and Housing. Although the assessor concluded her claim was eligible the chief executive concluded that the claim was not an eligible claim because it was not filed within...
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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 10 APPLICANT EX RESPONDENT IO The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. EX gifted a scooter to his son DX for Christmas 2020. He claims that the scooter is now being held by DX’s mother, IO, and claims $479.99 from her being the cost of the scooter. 2. The issues to be decided are: a. Who owns th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 24 APPLICANT QS RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim for a declaration of non-liability is denied, so QS is to pay the sum of $1,006.25 to B Ltd in full, on or before 5pm Monday 11 March 2024. Reasons: 1. QS contracted B Ltd in July 2023 due to a dripping leak in the guest toilet at her [suburb] residence and ask...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1417 APPLICANT IN Ltd RESPONDENT JT The Tribunal hereby orders, on the claim and counter-claim: JT is to pay $962.40 to IN Ltd on or before 2 September 2020; and JT is declared not liable for any debt collection charges incurred by IN Ltd. Reasons 1. JT stayed at IN Ltd's "DI Home & Hospital" from 21 Aug...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 125 BETWEEN ABY APPLICANT AND ZYF Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 17 September 2013 Referee: Referee Hannan ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Respondent, ZYF Ltd, pay directly to the Applicant, ABY, the sum of $610.00 on or before 17 August 2011. The Respondent is entitled to retain possession of the Acer computer in question. Facts [1] The Applicant...
...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...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 197 Ref: LCRO 13/2021 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN ZW Applicant AND HN Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr ZW has a...
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 APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) DJ Ltd 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 sa...