12907 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 548 APPLICANT MG RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. L Ltd is a [housing agency] who leases properties from owners and then subleases them to people who need [housing]. One such property (the neighbouring property) is next to MG’s property. 2. One of the tenants of the neighbouring property moved a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 46 APPLICANT ET RESPONDENT DG The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 8 June 2020, the applicant ET purchased a car on finance in his own name for the respondent DG. The parties were friends, and had previously been in a relationship for around three months. Part of the arrangement was that the r...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 225 APPLICANT KG RESPONDENT OAU APPLICANT INSURER BBJ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. Around midday on Sunday 12 June 2022 KG was traveling on state highway 1 near [Town] when his car drove over a large pothole. There were was no speed reduction signs or anything to alert hi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 510 APPLICANT KB RESPONDENT NX The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 24 January 2024 KB entered into an agreement to purchase a section from NX. The section did not have a house as it had burnt down, and the debris had been removed. All that remained was an old garage with an attached carport, which contai...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 522 APPLICANT QU RESPONDENT UQ APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: UQ is to pay J Ltd $6,420.80 by 31 July 2024. Reasons 1. QU and UQ were involved in an accident on [road] on 13 June 2023. 2. QU stopped at a pedestrian crossing. UQ failed to stop and hit the rear of QU’s [vehicle]....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 282 APPLICANT BL RESPONDENT CD (NZ) Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] BL wanted to find a serviced apartment for himself and his family for a proposed visit to [International City]. He entered a “CD” website, and went through the process of booking an apartment, for which he paid NZ$17,000.00. Subsequently,...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 2 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT Q Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) DM Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. In terms of the counterclaim HT is to pay Q Ltd $1,552.50 on or before 5.00pm on 2 February 2024. Reasons: 1. HT decided to use Q Ltd for cleaning after she was the victim of a ram...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 121 APPLICANT OB RESPONDENT CM The Tribunal orders: 1. CM trading as X Co is to pay $72.00 to OB by the 16th May 2024. 2. Upon receipt of payment, OB is to return her damaged dog collar to CM trading as D Co within 7 days of receipt. Reasons 1. OB purchased a dog collar from CM for a “large strong dog” online for $72 including fre...
...an additional defendant, “CityMed Medical Centre”, to the proceeding. This is the name of the practice where Dr Culpan saw Ms Guo. [8] On 1 May 2018, the Co-Chairperson issued a Minute where, amongst other things, she declined Ms Guo’s application to file the amended claim. Leaving aside the issue of jurisdiction, the filing of evidence in the claim was by then complete, and a fixture had been allocated for 14 May 2018. In these circumstances, the Co-Chairperson stated she...
...adviser, lawyer or included in certain other specific categories of persons. There are some limited exceptions to the general principle, but the restriction applies everywhere in the world. [3] The regime requires licensed immigration advisers to perform the services personally. They are different from other professionals who can usually allow non-qualified staff to provide many services under the supervision of a qualified professional. [4] This Tribunal, unfortunately, has been...