12515 items matching your search terms
LCRO 215/2011 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 1 BETWEEN MR AI Applicant AND MR ZO Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. [1] The Auckland Standards Committee 1 declined to uphold a complaint by Mr AI against law practitioner Mr...
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 264 APPLICANT KW RESPONDENT NX The Tribunal orders: 1. NX is to pay KW $510.00 on or before 11 July 2023. 2. The claim for the filing fee and hearing attendance costs of $955.50 is dismissed. 3. The claim for medical costs of $69.50 is struck out. Reasons 1. On 8 March 2023 KW was stationary on his e-scooter, on the median strip on [Road 1] waiti...
...13 May 2019 CONSENT INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE CHRISTINA INGLIS (Application to strike out part of the pleadings) [1] By minute dated 12 April 2019, I directed the applicant to file and serve any amended statement of claim, together with an application for leave to file out of time, no later than 4.30 pm on Tuesday 23 April 2019. Failing that, the application by Ms Catran, counsel assisting the Court, to strike out parts of the statement of claim, w...
...must share equal responsibility with I Ltd for their loss, I Ltd must pay them half of that sum, which is $5,558.31. [25] The applicants are entitled to interest on the sum that I have ordered that I Ltd must pay them. Under the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016, interest on the sum payable from 17 May to 5 December 2023 amounts to $165.44. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 5 of 6 [26] I have not allowed the applicants’ claim for compensation for stress. Damages for stress are unusu...
...been declined on 22 February 2021. [5] It is understood that the complainant approached Ms Li. The client signed a service agreement with Fayo on 23 March 2021. Fayo undertook to file a s 61 request for a partnership work visa and later an application for a partnership resident visa. The fee for the s 61 request was $2,500. If the work was terminated, the fee would be based on the hours worked at $300 per hour. [6] On 10 May 2021, Ms Li filed with Immigration NZ a request fo...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 193 APPLICANT CP Ltd RESPONDENT ES The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim CP Ltd is to pay ES the sum of $2824.50 on or before 18 October 2022. Reasons 1. On 5 April 2022 ES contracted CP Ltd to supply a flat-pack cabin and assemble it on her site. The contract price was $8849.00 and ES paid a $2000....
...WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2021] NZEmpC 51 EMPC 342/2019 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed in full from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for further and better particulars BETWEEN SOPHIE MCKEICH First Plaintiff AND SHANE HANSON Second Plaintiff AND DDUP NZ LIMITED First Defendant AND YONG LIU Second Defendant Hear...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 46 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT UI The Tribunal orders: 1. UI is to pay KQ $2980.25 on or before 24 February 2023. Reasons: 1. KQ and UI own neighbouring properties. KQ has an easement over UI’s property (“the driveway”) that provides for ingress and egress to his home. KQ alleges that when UI carried out works to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 106 APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT QN The Tribunal orders: QN is to pay $30,000.00 to KT by 29 September 2022. Reasons 1. KT was the successful buyer of [a sports car]. The sale included many [car] parts. The contract resulted from QN offering the items for sale in [an online auction]. Following the auction...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 383 APPLICANT NJ Ltd RESPONDENT UX Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NJ Ltd claims that it was overcharged for milk products purchased from UX Ltd in 2020 to 2021 for resale to customers in [overseas country]. NJ Ltd initially claimed that many products had not been received, but in later hearings NJ Ltd foc...