12924 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 463 APPLICANT SH RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Was the service provided by the respondent carried out with reasonable care and skill and fit for purpose? 1. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides that services carried out by suppliers come with guarantees of reasonable care and skill and fit...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 59 APPLICANT IO RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. D Ltd will register the car in IO’s name at its own cost. 3. IO is to collect his car on or before 5pm on 13 March 2024. If he does not collect the car D Ltd can dispose of it in any manner it sees fit but IO is not entitled to a refun...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 105 APPLICANT DI RESPONDENT DE SECOND RESPONDENT UC Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. DI brings a claim regarding an agreement to purchase UC in 2018 from DE. A deposit of $52,577.80 was made. He states that he requested that five years of financial statements were to be provided...
...Directed by the Adjudicator under clause 1 of Schedule 1 of the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 This practice direction sets out the policy and procedures of the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) about the information that needs to be included with your application. What we need when you send your application to the Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal You must provide the following information: A clearly written and completed Application Form, The name and the address of the motor vehicle trader...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 744 APPLICANT CQ SECOND APPLICANT LM THIRD APPLICANT OL RESPONDENT JT The Tribunal orders: 1. From 22 January 2024, CQ may undertake work to build a boundary fence which shall be constructed along the driveway on the boundary between [Address 1] and [Address 2]. This work will include the removal of the current fence....
...fees cannot be ordered. These are costs which the Tribunal is unable to order under section 43 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 Did OB Ltd provide its service with reasonable care and skill? 3. NG has claimed that OB Ltd failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 provides guarantees for consumers that services will be provided with reasonable care and skill. NG’s belief is that the resc...
...as having taken over the legal obligation of the company that signed the collective agreement, TLNZ Ltd. The union relied either on the doctrine of estoppel or the lifting of the corporate veil to obtain the relief it sought in its statement of claim, namely a finding that C3 is the employer party to the collective agreement. [2] Following the conclusion of the hearing counsel were agreed that further submissions would be filed on two issues: the principles that apply to the lif...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 289 APPLICANT TG RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: a. The applicant’s claim is dismissed. b. The respondent’s counterclaim is awarded in the amount of $24,890.65. c. Contractual interest on that amount is awarded at $5,109.35. d. TG is to pay E Ltd $30,000.00 by 15/6/24. Reasons: 1. This order should be read with those...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 97 APPLICANT CH RESPONDENT JJ The Tribunal orders: JJ is to pay directly to CH the sum of $449.00 on or before 31 August 2022. JJ may uplift, at his own cost, the Q hob installed at the applicant’s property in March 2022. If the respondent does not uplift the hob on or before 9 September 2022 the applicant may dispose...
...to be the unreasonable decline by Mr Beattie of the Assignee’s Calderbank offer. Other conduct of Mr Beattie is said to have been unreasonable. The Assignee says he has incurred costs well in excess of $100,000 in responding to Mr Beattie’s claim. [2] It is to be noted that while Mr Beattie filed an appeal in the High Court, that appeal was struck out by Brewer J in Beattie v The Official Assignee [2021] NZHC 1607 (1 July 2021) as a consequence of Mr Beattie’s failure to serve hi...