12924 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 204 APPLICANT GF Ltd RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim for a declaration of non-liability is denied, so GF Ltd is to pay $4219.79 to D Ltd on or before 24 May 2023; and The balance of the claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In August 2018, IU Ltd, a company for which Mr T, now the director of GF Ltd, wa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 662 APPLICANT ET APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT CK SECOND RESPONDENT SK The Tribunal orders: 1. CK and SK, jointly and severally, are to pay ET and KT, as trustees of the N Trust, the sum of $864.98 on or before 19 October 2023. 2. CK and SK are to return the key to the apartment to ET and KT at their own expense or pay a
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 682 APPLICANT BN RESPONDENT T Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. T Limited owns commercial premises at [redacted]. The premises were previously occupied by a bakery and produce business trading as [Company A]. 2. In December 2023 [Company A] ceased trading, and the company that owned the busines...
...Self-represented Complainant: R Small, counsel Adviser: Self-represented 2 PRELIMINARY [1] The complainant, NG, was in New Zealand unlawfully at the time he engaged the adviser, Nirmala Krishna Murthy. She made two unsuccessful s 61 requests for him.1 In doing so, she committed a number of breaches of her professional obligations. [2] A complaint by the complainant against Ms Murthy to the Immigration Advisers Authority (the Authority) has been referred by the Registrar...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 262 APPLICANT CD RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On the 14th of November 2023, CD was issued with a breach notice for parking at the [shopping centre]. The breach notice stated that she had “parked without permission in authorised vehicle only car park.” 2. CD appealed t...
...that Mr Zhang’s view of the law set out in that email does not constitute a political opinion for the purposes of s 21(1)(j) of the HRA and, for that reason, his claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. [8] On receipt of the Hotel’s application, Mr Zhang filed an application to strike out the counsel for the defendant.3 He subsequently amended that application to have Lane Neave, the law firm acting for the Hotel, also held in contempt.4 2 This was clarified by him at...
...DECISION OF TRIBUNAL1 1 This decision is to be cited as Rendell v Attorney-General [2024] NZHRRT 7. Note publication restrictions. IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2024] NZHRRT 7 I TE TARAIPIUNARA MANA TANGATA 2 [1] Mr Rendell made an information privacy request to the Police under the Privacy Act 1993 (the Act).2 The request stems from dealings he had with the New Zealand Police (Police) which resulted in a conviction for dangerous driving in 2018. [2] The Police re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 443 APPLICANT E Ltd RESPONDENT KC APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. KC is to pay J Ltd the sum of $12,747.36 on or before 17 June 2024. Reasons: 1. On 13 June 2023 a truck owned by E Ltd was driving on a single tracked metal road when it met a ute driven by KC driving in the other dire...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1475 APPLICANT DH Ltd RESPONDENT AF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons: 1. DH Ltd (in liquidation) claims the sum of $27,252.00 from AF Ltd for commissions owed at the time of liquidation. 2. AF Ltd’s submissions raise a number of defences. It argues that its contract was with DG Ltd,...
...Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 134 APPLICANT FM APPLICANT PM RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 2. In 2021, FM and PM (together the ‘applicants’) approached QF Ltd with the intention of entering into a contract for a house land package in a developing subdivision. When the applicants were unable to secure finance, they entered into a contract with QF Ltd for the purchase o...