12515 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 27 APPLICANT D Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT BQ SECOND RESPONDENT GN The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. BQ did not appear, the applicant’s representative and GN did. [2] The applicant claims payment for tiling work carried out...
...having only the first truckload of waste taken away, given that was the amount the price he had been given was based on, he would have done that because it was uneconomic for the truck to come back for only a half-load of waste. B Ltd says they were requested to empty the septic tank and that is what they did. 5. B Ltd’s position would be reasonable contractually if the price had increased only in proportion to the amount of waste taken away. However, because returning to remove onl...
...was delivered on 23 December 2022 MI immediately determined that the machine protruded far beyond the space, and, in fact, measured closer to 720mm in depth than the described 650mm. 3. MI sought to return the machine to T Ltd who declined his request, treating it as a ‘change of mind’. The claim is therefore for the purchase price of the machine of $1394.35 plus $270.00 consequential losses of storage and/or laundromat time and expenses. 4. T Ltd did not provide a representativ...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 18 APPLICANT KU RESPONDENT KG Ltd The Tribunal orders: KG Ltd is to pay $2,500.00 to KU on or before Monday 13 February 2023. Reasons: 1. KU was gifted a voucher for a 10 hour, private big game charter in the Bay of Islands for up to four guests as a birthday present. The voucher expired on 17 September 2022, howe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 16 APPLICANT P Ltd RESPONDENT W Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. P Ltd’s application is dismissed. Reasons 2. P Ltd is the owner of a [car] used by a senior employee, NL. On 4 December 2021, NL parked the car at the car park at [a beach], in order to meet with a friend. While attending the meeting NL saw an employee of W Ltd cl...
...from his wife. The Applicant had originally acted for himself, and had then approached the Practitioner for assistance. The Applicant was charged $3,400 plus GST and disbursements. The Applicant’s refusal to pay led the Practitioner to file a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. [3] The Applicant’s complaint to the New Zealand Law Society stated that the reason for his not paying was that he felt the Practitioner was working for the industry, and working for the opposition lawyer...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 266 APPLICANT L Ltd RESPONDENT UT The Tribunal orders: UT is to pay the sum of $850.00 to L Ltd on or before Monday 16 January 2023. Reasons: 1. On 1 August 2022, UT (the customer) signed a six-month Membership Agreement with L Ltd (the gym). The membership fee was $170.00 per month. The customer signed a form to pa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 390 APPLICANT IG Ltd RESPONDENT IX Ltd The Tribunal orders: It is declared that IG Ltd is not liable for the invoices issued by IX Ltd dated 30 November 2022 for $4,471.20 and 16 December 2022 for $2,300.43. The counterclaim by IX Ltd with respect to these invoices is dismissed. Reasons: 1) In April 2019 the applicant op...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 15 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT OQ SECOND RESPONDENT ST The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. The matter involves the recovery of a debt that KS, director of B Ltd, says is owed by OQ and ST in relation to electrical work carried out by B Ltd on their house at [address...
...he is claiming a refund for? b. Can he make a claim for the amounts under the [international legislation] and the contract with K Ltd? c. What if anything is payable to him? Has UC paid any of the amounts he is claiming a refund for? 5. UC claims that he is entitled to what he describes as a repayment of the passenger movement charges which were payable for the travel from [Country 2] to [Country 1], which appears to have been $NZ60.00 for 59 flights, amounting to $NZ3,540.00. U...