Search Results

1. KG v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 705 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 705 APPLICANT KG RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. D Ltd is to pay KG $1,237.00 on or before 5.00pm on 19 January 2024. Reasons 1. KG engaged the services of D Ltd to move her furniture from storage to her new place of residence. When the furniture was delivered, she later found that her China cabinet was damaged, with the intern...

2. W v D [2019] NZDT 1362 (29 November 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1362 APPLICANT KW RESPONDENT QD The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. Mr W purchased a property from Mr D (and partner) in 2015. Mr W's neighbours had the boundary surveyed at some point after he purchased, and established that the fence, which all concerned had understood to be on th...

3. Zhang & Cao v Chen [2018] NZIACDT 11 (5 April 2018) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...in the invidious position of making large investments into companies where a person nominated by the adviser was the sole director. The complainant apparently did not meet the sole director, and was not provided with his contact details when requested. His address registered with the Companies Office was the same as the adviser’s address disclosed in a document before the Tribunal. Fees purportedly for the services of that director were allegedly paid to the director’s moth...

4. ZE v NE [2022] NZDT 90 (26 August 2022) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...Page 2 of 3 8. For these reasons I find that NE was not negligent and is not responsible for the cat’s distressing injuries nor the costs to treat them. Referee Perfect Date: 26 August 2022 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehe...

5. ED Ltd v TQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 312 (27 July 2023) [pdf, 221 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 312 APPLICANT ED Ltd RESPONDENT TQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: TQ Ltd is to pay $274.49 to ED Ltd on or before 24 August 2023. Reasons 1. ED Ltd engaged TQ Ltd to supply metal windows and matching double doors. TQ Ltd emailed ED Ltd a written quotation dated 14 April 2021 for $27,077.72 incl. GST and ED Ltd accepted the q...

6. BL & KL v QT [2024] NZDT 206 (12 April 2024) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...was a “cash” job, there is no contract documentation of the scope of work, the price or the terms, except for the roof, therefore the information available to the Tribunal is limited and much of it is in dispute. The burden of proof is on the Applicants. 17. There is extensive evidence that the workmanship was defective, with overspray and paint drips on many interior and exterior surfaces, peeling paint on the gutters and later the roof. 18. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds tha...

7. MO & HD v IE Ltd [2022] NZDT 285 (23 November 2022) [pdf, 154 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 285 APPLICANT MO and HD FIRST RESPONDENT IE Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT DG THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT FU The Tribunal orders: IE Ltd is to pay $7043.75 to MO and HD on or before 23 December 2022; and The claim is dismissed the second and third respondents; and The counter-claim is dismissed....

8. SL v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 444 (11 September 2023) [pdf, 171 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 444 APPLICANT SL RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In February 2022, SL started [treatment 1] and then [treatment 2] treatment by T Ltd for fat reduction around her abdomen. She was unhappy with the results and found [treatment 2] painful. 2. SL now seeks a refund of the $4...

9. [2009] NZEmpC WC12/09 Stevenson V Bentan Twisted Ltd [pdf, 10 KB]

   STEVENSON V BENTAN TWISTED LTD WN WC 12/09 7 May 2009 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON WC 12/09 WRC 10/09 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file challenge out of time BETWEEN SHAUN STEVENSON Applicant AND BENTAN TWISTED LIMITED Respondent Hearing: (Heard on the papers) 5 May 2009 Judgment: 7 May 2009 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C M SHAW [1] This is an unopposed application for leave to file a statement of claim out of time. [2] The a...

10. NN Ltd v FS [2021] NZDT 1403 (28 April 2021) [pdf, 231 KB]

    ...for several reasons. EH replied that he would write the balance off. 7. On 10 December 2020, NN advised FS that he had reconsidered and sought payment of the outstanding amount. FS did not pay. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 8. NN claimed payment of the outstanding $2,051.28 plus $1,634 for interest at 2%/mth from 30 January 2020. In addition NN claimed $539.88 for 2 ½ hours time preparing for and attending the Tribunal hearing and $90 for the Tribunal filing fee. I...