12509 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 127 APPLICANT RQ and TQ RESPONDENT SR SECOND RESPONDENT N Trust Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Trust Ltd is to pay RQ and TQ the sum of $46.00 by no later than 29 August 2022. The claim against SR is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 17 October 2021, RQ and TQ signed an agreement to purchase real estat...
...OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 210 APPLICANT HN, HC and TO, as trustees for the N Trust RESPONDENT NE The Tribunal orders: NE is to pay HN, HC and TO $25,062.17 within 28 days. Reasons [1] The applicants, as trustees of the N Trust, claim from NE arrears of rent and other expenses outstanding under a lease. Their claim, as landlords, is that NE is liable under a personal guarantee for the obligations of the tenant, T Ltd (“TL”), o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 536 APPLICANT DD RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: DD Must pay H Ltd $1,012.00 by 4pm on 7 November 2023. Reasons: 1. The respondent provided the services of an electrician to the applicant. The applicant was charged $1,257.38 for this work of which $195.00 has been paid to date. The applicant is unhappy with the work and the amo...
GREGORY DOUGLAS HALL V WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED NZEmpC AK [2012] NZEmpC 78 [9 May 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2012] NZEmpC 78 ARC 82/12 IN THE MATTER OF an application for special leave to remove proceedings to the Court BETWEEN GREGORY DOUGLAS HALL Applicant AND WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Respondent Hearing: Following memoranda filed on 8 May 2013 (At Auckland) Counsel: Tony Drake, counsel for applicant Phillipa Muir, co...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 661 APPLICANT NE and SE RESPONDENT JI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NE and SE (“the purchasers”) bought a house from JI (“the vendor”) in January 2023. The house is about 37 years old. They say JI failed to fulfil an undertaking to fix a leak prior to sale, and they claim $30,000.00 towards the
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 337 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HT was an [food delivery] driver between 2018 and May 2022, having entered into a driver partner agreement with Q Ltd and VX. In May 2022 Q Ltd terminated the agreement. This was because someone signed into HT’s [food delivery] account from...
...is an application for leave to appeal against a judgment of Her Honour, Judge Henare, delivered on 12 December 2023.1 At issue in the appeal were the applicant’s head injury and entitlement to weekly compensation for incapacity dating back to claims in March 1996 and February 2008. The Court dismissed the appeal, for the reasons outlined below. 1 JD v Accident Compensation Corporation [2023] NZACC 202. 2 Background [2] The applicant was granted cover for contusions...
...(being $400.00 uninsured losses and $5261.64 insured losses) to WJ New Zealand Ltd on or before 5 February 2021. NB. This claim includes insured and uninsured losses which had been incorrectly set up administratively by the Tribunal as two separate claims – I have merged the two files. Reasons 1. DI Limited (‘DIL’) installed a heat pump system at MG’s house (with the external unit at second storey level above the garage roof) in January 2019. 2. In August 2020 the exte...
...to disconnect existing steam operated machines and install new steam and water pipes for new machines. The job was to be done in two stages, to ensure new the machines were up and running before old machines were disconnected. 2. The Applicant claims that the contract was time and materials and that no estimate or quote was provided. The Respondent claims that the Applicant provided a verbal estimate of $5,000.00 plus GST. 3. The job was expected to take 2 days but stage 1 took...
...evidence to indicate that the Respondent misled the Applicant in any way so that he would sign the document. 12. Given this, I find that the Applicant is liable to pay the marketing costs in the amount of $2,445.00. 13. The Respondent has also claimed the amount of the debt recovery costs being $710.94. The Tribunal has limited discretion in awarding costs. In the present case, I do not consider it appropriate to award such costs. Referee: A Chand Date: 30th...