12515 items matching your search terms
...COURT AT WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI-Ā-ROHE KI TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZACC 141 ACR 191/18 ACR 273/19 UNDER THE ACCIDENT COMPENSATION ACT 2001 IN THE MATTER OF AN APPEAL UNDER SECTION 162 OF THE ACT BETWEEN L M Applicant AND ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION Respondent Hearing: On the Papers Judgment: 20 September 2021 ___________________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT OF JUDGE D CLARK [Lea...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 41 APPLICANT QQ RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay $980.00 to QQ on or before 5.00pm on 17 May 2022 Reasons 1. In April 2021 QQ sent TQ a message wanting to book accommodation in [Town] for a family holiday commencing on 30 August 2021. TQ is an accommodation provider through various platforms in...
...Immigration Advisers Authority referred this complaint to the Tribunal. The background to the complaint is: [1.1] Mr Dhar’s client sought advice regarding a letter from Immigration New Zealand, the letter expressed concerns relating to a work visa application. [1.2] Mr Dhar filed an expression of interest (EOI), which was selected. However Immigration New Zealand declined the first work visa application; a second work visa application that Mr Dhar prepared. [1.3] Mr Dhar filed a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 602 APPLICANT TE SECOND RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. TE is to pay M Ltd (M Ltd), $649.37, on all by 30 November 2023. Reasons 2. TE contracted with M Ltd for the supply of aluminium joinery for the conversion of a barn to a lecture building with a storage area. 3. Six versions of a quotation were provided, with var...
...District Court [2021] NZDT 1650 APPLICANT KT and TE RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay the sum of $457.00 to KT and TE on or before Friday 26 November 2021. Reasons: 1. On 29 June 2021, the applicants made a booking through [Travel company C] for three adults to stay on 19 August 2021 at the [Hotel D] in [City A], a hotel owned by the respondent B Ltd. They paid a premium for the flexible booking option. On 17 August 2021, a Covid...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 232 APPLICANT TO APPLICANT TA RESPONDENT MB The Tribunal orders: MB is to pay TO the sum of $2,779.54 and TA the sum of $640.00 on or before 2 June 2023. Reasons: 1. TO and TA purchased tickets from MB, to fly from [City 1] to [City 2], via [Country 1]. Their flight between [Country 1] and [Country 2] was cancell...
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1372 APPLICANT UB RESPONDENT KL The Tribunal orders: KL is to pay UB the amount of $907.44 on or before 4 December 2020. Reasons 1. In June 2020 KL rented out a semi-self-contained studio on her property to UB that had its own kitchen facilities and was semi-furnished. They agreed to a rental amount of $200.00 per week and UB paid $900.00, being
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 208 APPLICANT IM RESPONDENT IS The Tribunal orders: IM’s claim against IS is struck out. Reasons 1. Between 2018 and 2020, IM was employed by IS’s company TD Ltd as a Safety Manager. TD Ltd stopped trading in February 2020. IM alleges that IS transferred the titles of 3 of TD Ltd’s company vehicles into his own name....
...The funds will then be released to Pidgeon Judd as the bond required under the Enforcement Order. The Respondents will grant unhindered access to the Applicants to undertake work as per the Enforcement Order for 7 days. (b) The Respondents request that the Court directs that the Applicants, its agents or contractors, do not damage the property. The Applicants’ response [14] Counsel for the Applicants opposed the application for adjournment for the following reasons: (...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 49 APPLICANT HB APPLICANT UB RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HB and UB purchased a tuktuk vehicle from KN for $13,500.00. They purchased the vehicle on the basis that it had a current warrant of fitness (“WOF”) and was “road legal”. 2. Shortly after purchase,...