12924 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 158 APPLICANT BU RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 2. BU purchased a [car] from B Ltd for $5,250.00. He understood the car was registered as a seven seater car. BU has a large family and was in the market to buy a car that could fit his family. After he purchased the car, he d...
1 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 399 APPLICANT OT RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In 2020 OT purchased a used [performance car] from [dealership] in [City 1]. After travelling 8,000kms and within the three year warranty period, he discovered the water pump was leaking. He took the vehicle to BN, the [dealer] in [City 2], who could not find any...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 371 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: G Ltd is to pay D Ltd $19,662.67 on or before 25 May 2023. Reasons 1. D Ltd supplied electricity to G Ltd as the company is now called, (previously GH Ltd), under D Ltd’s terms and conditions. In about 2020 and 2021, D Ltd discovered that there had been p...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 774 APPLICANT TM RESPONDENT BC Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TM and GH, representing BC Limited (“BC”) both attended the hearing by teleconference. 2. TM took his vehicle to BC for repair as there were issues with its engine. He said BC agreed to provide a full engine replacem...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 176 APPLICANT AM RESPONDENT BN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. Mr AM purchased a [car] in March 2021 on GN from a person named EI, by swapping it for a vehicle to the value of $10,000.00 and has since spent $6,000.00 on repairs and upgrades. On 3 May 2022 the [...
...LTD NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 101 [30 June 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2015] NZEmpC 101 EMPC 61/15 IN THE MATTER OF an application to file a cross-challenge out of time BETWEEN DAVID GEORGETTI Applicant AND COMPASS COMMUNICATONS LTD Respondent Hearing: 29 June 2015 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: S Hornsby-Geluk and M Harrop, counsel for applicant D Organ, advocate for respondent Judgment:...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2017] NZDT 1447 APPLICANT TQ Limited RESPONDENT MQ The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. The claim is struck out. 2. A rehearing will be granted if TQ Limited provides a ruling from the Employment Relations Authority stating that the matter is outside its jurisdiction. Reasons: 1. On 2 May 2016, Mr Q was hired as an employe...
LCRO 251/2010 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 4 BETWEEN MS CX of Auckland Applicant AND MR WZ of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In 2009 the Applicant was in a relationship with Mr CY. Mr CY was the sol...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2010-100-000098 [2014] NZWHT AUCKLAND 03 BETWEEN ANTHONY WONG-KAM Applicant for Costs Respondent 16 in original claim AND GILLIAN ANNE BARRON Second Respondent in original claim Decision: 21 March 2014 COSTS DETERMINATION Adjudicator: P A McConnell 2 INTRODUCTION [1] Anthony Wong-Kam, the sixteenth respondent, in the original claim, seeks a costs award against Gillian Barron, the second respondent....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 28 APPLICANT C Ltd B Ltd RESPONDDNT SU The Tribunal orders: 1. B Ltd is joined as an applicant to this claim. 2. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In October 2022, B Ltd provided a quote to SU for the re-roofing of a property in [Town]. 2. Between February and April 2023 there were some further discussions be...