13020 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 17 APPLICANT MR RESPONDENT BJ Limited The Tribunal orders: Claim dismissed. Reasons: 1. In September 2021, MR lodged a claim with his insurer, BJ, following damage to his TV. BJ accepted the claim, determined the TV could not be repaired, and offered a replacement. As the model owned by MR was no longer avai...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 186 APPLICANT LF Ltd RESPONDENT DQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim for a declaration of non-liability is struck out. 2. LF Ltd is to pay the sum of $999.77 to DQ Ltd on or before Tuesday 29 November 2022. Reasons: 1. While digging holes for a new fence on the grounds of its work premises, the applicant...
...797 APPLICANT NN APPLICANT OD RESPONDENT Z Ltd The Tribunal orders: Z Ltd is to pay to NN and OD jointly the sum of $5,232.36 on or before 18 December 2024. Reasons: 1. In January 2024, NN and OD (“the applicants”) booked a rental car using [an online booking platform]. The car was booked with Z Ltd. 2. The applicants picked up the car on 15 January 2024 in [Location 1] from Z Ltd and completed the rental agreement. 3. On 16 Janua...
...agreement, and he was fully paid up in rent when he left. 7. Clause 6 also provides that “[I]f the tenant seeks an early termination, the tenant is responsible for finding a new tenant to complete the term of the fixed lease rental agreement”. HO claimed in messages with IX that because no tenant had been found, HO was entitled to keep the bond to cover the rent in the weeks after IX left. 8. However I do not accept that this is correct. The obligation on IX was clear, but he...
...earlier consent and did not form part of the 2 nd stage of the development carried out in relation to relevant building consent. Therefore it is unlikely to have formed part of the building consent issued for the construction of the dwelling which forms the 6 subject matter of this claim. I further note that Smith Wood Engineering Consultants Limited issued a producer statement dated 11 November 1999 which stated that inspections had been carried out while the construction wo...
1 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 119 APPLICANT LU RESPONDENT LBI The Tribunal orders: LBI is to pay $31,431.93 to LU on or before Friday 26 April 2024. Reasons: 1. In 2021 LU was 21 years of age and was in her final year completing a master’s degree. She was employed by [University 1] as a part time researcher and LBI was her manager. LBI left the University later that year to set up...
...ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Body Corporate 310620 is the representative of the owners of a two unit complex at Glenmore Street, Kelburn. On 4 July 2011 they filed an application for an assessor’s report with the Department of Building and Housing. The chief executive concluded that the claim was not an eligible claim because it was not filed within ten years of when the complex was built. [2] The...
...response as in the years prior to 2008 his membership had been renewed without any formality upon payment of the annual fee. He had not previously been asked to submit a formal application and supporting documents and did not on this occasion submit the requested application. [6] In early August 2014 Mr David Aldridge, a friend of Mr Brooks, tried to renew Mr Brooks’ membership of TUNZ. Mr Aldridge has trained and competed in Taekwondo for the past 37 years and has represented New Z...
...respondents. [2] Mr Galloway said his client was not seeking removal in the light of the decision of the High Court in Fenton v Building Code Consultants Ltd HC Auckland, CIV-2009-404-6348, 15 March 2010. Ms Donaldson did not wish to pursue a removal application as it was unlikely to succeed because of the requirement for the Tribunal to treat factual allegations in pleadings as being correct at the removal/strike out stage. [3] The High Court in Fenton held that s 112 and...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 195 APPLICANT KW RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay KW $609.00 within 30 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. In September 2020, T Ltd supplied and installed a gate automation system at KW’s property. In September 2021, there was an issue with the gate not working. KW called T Ltd, who visited...