12515 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 269 APPLICANT KL APPLICANT KC RESPONDENT EJ Ltd The Tribunal orders: EJ Ltd must pay KL and KC $4,262.00 by 4pm on 24 January 2023. Reasons: 1. The applicants ordered a television unit from the respondent on 13 January 2022 and paid a 50% deposit of $4,262.00. The estimated delivery time for the unit was 1...
.................................................................................................................................. 3 Grounds for Review ................................................................................................................. 4 APPLICATIONS FOR REVIEW ................................................................................................ 5 Applications ...............................................................................................
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1694 APPLICANT EF RESPONDENT UM The Tribunal orders: UM is to pay $30,000.00 to EF on or before Friday 29 October 2021. Reasons: 1. In May 2019, EF and UM signed an Agreement to Purchase. The header page named “[Company 1] or nominee company” and “EF or nominee” as the parties. The agreement set out “act...
...and he did not know about it. The issue in relation to the provision of false documents is whether the Tribunal can uphold such a complaint which failed at trial in a prosecution. [3] It is also alleged Mr Wong entered information onto a blank application form already signed by a client, before filing the application with Immigration New Zealand. Mr Wong denies doing so, contrary to an admission he made to the Authority. He declined to attend the Tribunal’s hearing of the com...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2014] NZDT 723 BETWEEN DM APPLICANT AND VN TRUSTEES LIMITED RESPONDENT Date of Order: 31 October 2014 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VN Trustees Limited as trustee of AA is to pay the sum of $6,182.40 directly to DM trading as ABC on or before 28 November 2014 and the counter claim is dismissed. Facts [1] DM, trading as ABC, was engaged by VN T...
Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) RESULT OF APPLICATION FOR REHEARING [2023] NZDT 557 APPLICANT person or organisation making the original claim ED RESPONDENT person or organisation originally claimed against MA Result of application for rehearing: Rehearing Granted The Order of 18 April 2023 is set aside. In due course the parties will be advised of the date and time of the new hearing. Reasons for decision: 1...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 208 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT SD Ltd The Tribunal orders: SD Ltd is to pay SX $600.00 by 8 December 2022. Reasons: 1. In July 2022, SX rented a cabin from SD Ltd. She says the cabin had a chemical odour and was not fit for purpose. She claims a refund of all money paid for the cabin, as well as furniture removal costs....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 6 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT NQ The Tribunal orders: NQ is to pay N Ltd the sum of $990.15 by no later than 15 March 2024. Reasons: 1. The matter arises from NQ’s shopping trolley (full of groceries) hitting a parked car owned by N Ltd in a supermarket car park. 2. The respondent has been amended to reflect that NQ should be...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 107 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT OQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] B Ltd, represented by director CX, claims from OQ the expenses incurred by B Ltd in research and development regarding a machine that OQ required. B Ltd did not succeed in its attempts to design and make a machine in accordance with the needs of O...
...LCRO 207/2011 LCRO 208/2011 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Canterbury-Westland Standards Committee 3 BETWEEN TA Applicant AND NC NB Respondent The names and indentifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] The Standards Committee declined to uphold a number of complaint...