12513 items matching your search terms
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 241 APPLICANT ND RESPONDENT EI SECOND RESPONDENT DM THIRD RESPONDENT T Ltd FOURTH RESPONDENT CI The Tribunal orders: 1. DM and T Ltd are joined to the claim as respondents. 2. EI and DM and T Ltd are to pay ND $500.00 on or before Friday 5 May 2023. 3. The claim against CI is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In July 2021, ND purchased a propert
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 353 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT HT SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: HT is to pay the sum of $12,037.00 to BT on or before Tuesday 28 May 2024. Reasons: 1. On 1 May 2023, the applicant, who is a taxi driver, dropped off a passenger in a wheelchair to the [temple] at [address]. He parked in a designated loadi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 22 APPLICANT DQ RESPONDENT CC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. DQ says CC did a lot of damage while CC was a guest in her home on the evening of 12 November last year. Specifically, DQ says her soundbar did not work and required replacement as well as the cost of a TV specialist, H, to reconnec...
...approach in the Courts where there is a presumption that costs reflect success in the litigation. [6] The exceptions set out in the Act at s 47 are narrow. This is because the granting of costs is a departure from the usual approach. [7] An application for costs on the grounds in this application requires the Tribunal to: (a) consider whether a party raised allegations that were without substantial merit; and (b) if so, did those unmeritorious allegations cause costs and exp...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 419 APPLICANT TT RESPONDENT CT SECOND RESPONDENT QT The Tribunal orders: The remaining claim related to the specific items of personal property contained in this Order is dismissed. Reasons 1. The Applicant brought a claim for the return of specific items of personal property as listed in his submission from the Respond...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 270 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay $7,000.00 to B Ltd or before Monday 9 January 2022. Reasons: 1. B Ltd engaged H Ltd to build a trailer that is used to transport a tiny house on. After discussions and finalising the deal, B Ltd paid a deposit of $7,000.00. PO, directo...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 385 APPLICANT KI RESPONDENT MA The Tribunal orders: 1. KI’s claim against MA is dismissed. 2. MA’s counterclaim against KI is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The respondent had a room to rent in her flat which she advertised on Trade Me. The applicant applied for the room and the respondent said that the applic...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 354 APPLICANT KN and PN RESPONDENT V Inc The Tribunal orders: V Inc is to pay the sum of $2,898.92 to KN and PN on or before Friday 25 August 2023. Reasons: 1. On 29 August 2022, KN and PN (the consumers) paid $1,818.48 for two one-way tickets on V Inc from [NZ city] to [International city A] departing 13 Novembe
...This is an appeal by SG (the appellant) from the following review decisions relating to the funding for eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing therapy (EMDR) for the appellant: (a) decision dated 14 August 2023 dismissing the appellant’s application claiming that there had been unreasonable delay on the part of the Accident Compensation Corporation (the Corporation) in making a decision. The Reviewer found that the Corporation had made a decision on the appellant’s entit...
...no evidence. NY for R Ltd said they had requested [authorities]’s representative to attend the second hearing as a witness, but [authorities] declined to appear. Nevertheless, given the issues raised by R Ltd there would have been other written forms of evidence, such as independent testing, to support its claims, yet nothing was presented by R Ltd. D Ltd say that their work was done properly and the neighbour was causing problems for the site. 5. In the absence of any evidence...