12924 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 192 APPLICANT KB RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: O Ltd is to pay $30,000.00 to KB on or before 11 April 2024. Reasons 1. KB purchased a new-build off the plans from O Ltd, signing the agreement in March 2021. In December 2021 he was offered two choices of kitchen design by O Ltd’s agent. He opted for an L-shaped kitch...
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...
...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 [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...
...date and a way of moving forward. Following this meeting HT Ltd sent an email offering three options it was willing to proceed with. HFW Ltd chose one of those options, which included termination of the agreement and a payment, in a return email. It requested that HT Ltd sign an acknowledgement document before the payment was made. HT Ltd signed the document and added a date for payment of 8 March. HFW Ltd then stated that it did not consider that any further payments were owing to HT Ltd....
...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
...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 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,...
IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-00012/2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN N C M and M M as Trustees of the C M TRUST Applicants AND EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION First Respondent (Claim Withdrawn) AND TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent Date: 14 May 2021 Appearances: On the papers __________________________________________________________...
...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: (...