12508 items matching your search terms
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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1698 APPLICANT TO RESPONDENT OM Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TO said that on 28 November 2020 he attempted to purchase a $2,986.00 camera from OM in [City 1]. He used his eftpos card, but the transaction was declined. He tried a second time, but it was again declined. He was...
...issue [99] The propensity evidence tendered by Mr Taylor [106] The allegation of bad faith [108] Summary of case for Corrections [114] Key findings [117] THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS [120] Interference with privacy - definition [120] Decisions on requests [121] APPLICATION OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS TO THE FACTS [126] The concessions made by Corrections in relation to liability [130] THE QUESTION OF REMEDY [135] The question of a training order [138] The conduct of the defendant...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 171 APPLICANT MH RESPONDENT NB Ltd The Tribunal orders: NB Ltd is to pay MH $1,028.85 within 28 days. Reasons [1] MH claims that NB Ltd, represented by director EN, unsatisfactorily carried out repair work to her car, and claims $1,312.84 as compensation. EN denies liability. [2] MH’s case is set out in detail in...
...Registrar: In person. Complainant: In person. Adviser: S Singh, Singhs Barristers & Solicitors, Auckland. Date Issued: 19 March 2014 2 DECISION Introduction [1] The complainant dealt with his own immigration application; he provided information about his wife but did not mention he had separated from his wife and was in a relationship with someone else. [2] He then engaged the adviser to assist with a new application. Immigration New Zealand rais...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1664 APPLICANT QL RESPONDENT OQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In July 2020 QL rented a chair in the [X] business operated by OQ. Their arrangement came to an end in January 2021, when QL says the arrangement was abruptly terminated by OQ. 2. QL’s claim is for $3,474.50. He init...
Te Roopu Whakamana i te Tiriti 0 Waitangi Panui Tekau rna wha Maehe 1992 Orakei Settlement - At Last One of the most contentious land claims headed towards its final resolution with the passing of the Orakei Act 1991 late last year. The Act is very different from the 1978 legislation it replaces, reflecting the new environment for the settlement of Maori claims. The former legislation referred cautiously to an 'agreement' reached between the Crown and Maori, with regar...
...another agency where the request seeks urgency and the basis for the urgency request is not a matter that the recipient is able to sensibly assess but the agency to which the request is transferred is the only agency able to properly evaluate the claimed basis for the urgency? 4 [8.2] Question 2: Is a request for urgency under s 37 of the Privacy Act a relevant factor for an agency in determining whether to refuse a request for personal information under s 29(1)(j) of that Act? [...