Search Results

1. S Ltd v NG [2023] NZDT 669 (23 November 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...now seeks a refund of the $1,837.35 paid to her. 2. S Ltd’s claim was originally filed against NG, but N Ltd was joined as second respondent at the previous hearing since its name was used on the invoices. However, N Ltd’s representative ND informed the Tribunal and confirmed in the hearing that NG has no connection with that company and is unknown to ND. NG was the director of a company named NGD Ltd that was removed from the Companies Register in 2021. The correct respondent is the...

2. Marshall v IDEA Services Ltd (Privacy Act) [2020] NZHRRT 13 [pdf, 353 KB]

   ...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...

3. EN & ND v QI & MI [2023] NZDT 272 (21 July 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...in the Disputes Tribunal. 2. This is a claim for a breach of clause 7.3(1) of the ADLS Agreement for the sale and purchase of a residential property, because the toilet was allegedly not in working order, for the repair costs of $607.89. The applicants have also claimed the filing fee in the Tribunal. 3. The issues discussed today were as follows: a. In all the circumstances, has the clause in the sale and purchase agreement been breached by the vendors? b. If so, what com...

4. HF Ltd v Q Ltd [2024 NZDT 229 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   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...

5. MQ v NP [2023] NZDT 352 (7 August 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   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...

6. 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...

7. 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...

8. 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...

9. 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....

10. 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...