12870 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 352 APPLICANT MQ RESPONDENT NP The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. While driving his vehicle over a property owned by MQ, NP’s vehicle ran over a dog owned by MQ and NQ sadly causing serious injuries. The property is used as a base for MQ’s construction company and the area in front where...
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...
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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 229 APPLICANT HF Ltd RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: HF Ltd is to pay Q Ltd $5,982.79 by no later than 8th April 2024. Q Ltd is to supply replacement panels to HF Ltd within 10 working days from the receipt of payment. Reasons 1. The Applicant contracted the Respondent to provide kitchen joinery for their client. This...
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...
...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...
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....
...manner in which IDEA Services responded to their requests for personal information. [13.2] With the investigations undertaken by IDEA Services in the course of the preparation of Ms Brown’s report. SCOPE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS Statements of claim and reply [14] Mr and Mrs Marshall are the legal guardians of Eamon. Mr Marshall brought and conducted the present proceedings in that capacity. [15] The original statement of claim dated 11 March 2017 named Mr Marshall as the seco...
...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...
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...