12502 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 596 APPLICANT TN RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. TN is not liable to N Ltd for their invoice [number redacted] of $428.16 dated 15 May 2023. N Ltd’s claim for payment of the invoice is dismissed. 2. TN’s claim to move the charging station is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In March 2021, TN purchased a [lawn mower] f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2017] NZDT 1423 APPLICANT EG RESPONDENT WN Limited The Tribunal orders: 1. WN Limited is to pay to EG the sum of $815.43 on or before Friday, 29 December 2017. Reasons 1. EG engaged WN Limited (the company) to transport a house lot to England. EG was sent a quote for two options: the first was one 20” container ($9,180.00)....
...APPLICANT UD RESPONDENT W Ltd The Tribunal orders: W Ltd is to pay BI, BD, CD, EB, HW, HI, HN, NT, SS, TI, and UD, the sum of $4,994.33 on or before 23 March 2024. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 Reasons: 1. The applicants planned a golfing trip [overseas], and booked return flights with W Ltd. Their booking was made with W Ltd’s Group Sales Team in July 2019, and the flights were to be in April and May 2020. However, due to the impact of the pa...
...HNZ was to be routed through Ms Chandler, a Consumer Engagement Manager employed by HNZ. HNZ’s evidence also addressed its reasons for believing that Dr Van Wey Lovatt had requested the change of address. Together with its evidence, HNZ filed an application seeking orders striking out Dr Van Wey Lovatt’s claim on the basis that it was vexatious, not brought in good faith, disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of the process of the Tribunal. [6] On 15 November 20...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 74 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT ES The Tribunal orders: ES is to pay N Ltd $24,788.97 by 9 February 2024. Background 1. ES and NB (N Ltd) are neighbours. 2. On 8 August 2023, ES cut and removed 21 mature (20-25m) poplar trees located on N Ltd’s property, near the boundary. ES used a ‘tree shear’ attachment on his digger....
...‘signed’ acknowledgement from the customer to this effect. Allowing for the modern realities as to the manner in which contracts are entered into, I consider a ‘signed’ acknowledgement could be electronic, by way of completion of an on- line booking form. 10) The applicant says the relative booking was made by phone, and followed up with texts. The respondent says that its booking form (with its standard terms and conditions attached) was completed and it has submitted document...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2012] NZDT 186 BETWEEN ADE Ltd APPLICANT AND ZWV RESPONDENT Date of Order: 3 October 2012 Referee: Referee I Davidson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Respondent, ZWV, pay the Applicant, ADE Ltd, $380.98 within seven days of the date of this decision. Facts [1] The Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fees from the Respondent. It was common ground the App...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 795 BETWEEN BP APPLICANT AND YK RESPONDENT Date of Order: 13 July 2015 Referee: Referee Paton-Simpson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is struck out. Reasons: [1] The parties were in a de facto relationship for around six years. During the relationship, YK established a family trust known as the ABC Trust, with her three sons as the beneficiaries. The...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 228 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT CC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. CC emailed ED regarding the purchase of quail eggs and quails. 2. ED replied sending some information and proposing some dates to send a breeding group of quails, eggs and feed. 3. CC responded saying that she would love to pro...
...District Court [2023] NZDT 519 APPLICANT BQ APPLICANT LI RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: J Ltd is to pay BQ and LI the total sum of $5953.39 on or before Friday 3 November 2023. Reasons: 1. In October 2020, the Applicants purchased a 2 storey, 2 bedroom duplex from the first owner who bought it new from J Ltd (the company) in 2017. The Applicants claim that the roofing has failed within 5 years of being built and that it is not fit for purpose, and tha...