12922 items matching your search terms
Claim No: 1092 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between Auckland City Council (as assignee) Claimant And David Irwin First respondent And Paterson Cullen Irwin Limited Second respondent And Stuart Brentnall Third respondent And S J Brentnall Limited Fourth respondent And Carl Ruffels Fifth respondent And Auckland City Council Sixth respondent...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 562 APPLICANT UO RESPONDENT TQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: UO is to pay the sum of $299.00 to TQ Ltd on or before Monday 4 December 2023. Reasons: 1. UO and his wife TO are the tenants of a house owned by TO’s mother. On 21 July 2023, their hot water stopped working, and TO rang TQ Ltd to come and fix it. 2. TQ Ltd assessed...
...may vacate the hearing. If settlement is reached prior to the hearing, please notify the Court immediately. 1. SCHEDULING AND HEARING FEES The scheduling fee is incurred when the proceeding is scheduled for a substantive hearing or any other application or proceeding (apart from an interlocutory application). The scheduling fee is not refundable if the hearing is no longer required. EC4180_NoticeOfHearing The party bringing the proceeding is liable to pay hearing fees. •...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 717 APPLICANT LN RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The applicant’s name has been corrected from [redacted] to [redacted]. 2. The respondent has been renamed to reflect the contracting company – B Ltd. 3. The claim is dismissed. Reason Is the respondent required to provide a refund? 1. LN has made a claim tha...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 280 APPLICANT EE RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: H Ltd is to pay the sum of $185.14 to EE by no later than 25 August 2023. Reasons: 1. EE purchased second hand hearing aids and a charger unit from a person in [City]. When the items were approximately 18 months old, faults developed in both the hear...
...application for costs. Background [2] These proceedings have a lengthy and protracted procedural history. They stem from personal grievance proceedings filed in the Employment Relations Authority in January 2020 by Mr Halse on behalf of a former employee of Progress to Health and from a counterclaim filed in February 2020 by Progress to Health against both its former employee and Mr Halse. The counterclaim involves a claim that the former employee breached their employment agr...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 303 APPLICANT NT RESPONDENT HO The Tribunal orders: HO is to pay NT $455.71 on or before 9 September 2023. Reasons: 1. In around September 2022 NT and HO entered into a flatting arrangement. HO is the head tenant of an apartment in [City]. NT moved into the apartment in September 2022 and the arrangement came to...
...1993 to determine only whether there has been unlawful discrimination on one or more of the grounds listed in s 21 of that Act. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to complaints that the Ministry failed to properly process or consider an application for financial assistance. That is the function of the Social 2 Security Appeal Authority. Mr Meek did in fact commence a review under the Social Security Act of the decision in issue in this case but that review was subsequen...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 640 APPLICANT CN RESPONDENT NK The Tribunal orders: NK is ordered to pay CN the sum of $2,504.59. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 6 December 2023. Reasons: 1) In December 2022 the applicant bought a motorhome from the respondent. This was advertised on [online] marketplace. The price paid was $83,000.00....
...at that stage, and counsel for LSG prepared their submissions for that hearing accordingly. [7] On 20 May 2016, six days prior to the hearing that had been set for the outstanding applications, the plaintiff filed a second amended statement of claim (Mr Matsuoka has subsequently and less controversially filed a third amended statement of claim). The second amended statement of claim was a substantial pleading. Its preparation and filing must have been in contemplation, if not al...