12515 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 541 APPLICANT TL RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: L Ltd is to pay directly to TL the sum of $2,050 on or before Tuesday, 30 July 2024. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Only the applicant appeared at the hearing. When I called the respondent on the number advised by the company call centre, [redacte...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 654 BETWEEN BD LIMITED APPLICANT AND YW RESPONDENT Date of Order: 28 November 2013 Referee: Referee Reuvecamp ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed Facts [1] The applicant claims $5,202.37 in respect of goods to the value of $3,917.17 supplied to ABC Limited (“ABC”, company number #####) during 2011 and interest and enforcement costs. The...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 203 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. T Ltd used O Ltd to deliver goods, mostly polybins of chilled fish, to its customers in 2021 and 2022. 2. T Ltd claims compensation of $7814.30 (being the cost price of the goods only, no lost profit is claim...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 85 APPLICANT HI RESPONDENT HF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HI had an account for supply of electricity with HF Ltd at her property at [Street]. 2. In August 2022 she moved to [Street]. HI said she intended HF Ltd to continue to supply her electricity at her new property. At the time HI had an...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 33 APPLICANT OB RESPONDENT BB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed as liability has not been established against either driver. Reasons 1. In October 2020, BB and the driver of OB’s car, BH, were both driving in the same direction down [Road A], with BB’s c...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 500 APPLICANT HE RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: G Ltd is to pay HE $5,394.08 on or before 11 October 2023. Reasons Introduction 1. In September 2022, HE booked a holiday for himself and his wife to travel to [City 1] in May 2023. The purpose of the holiday was to surprise and treat his wife who had recently...
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 481 APPLICANT TU RESPONDENT TG Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: 1. TG Ltd is to pay the sum of $13,657.79 to TU on or before 6 July 2024. 2. The claim against SC is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 20 May 2020, TU signed an agreement to lease a new [car] from TG Limited trading as SF for a period of three years. The lease required a weekly re
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1605 APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT QX SECOND RESPONDENT TX THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT QG Ltd C/- LQ The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. QX and TX are jointly and severally liable to pay KD $8560.22 on or before 10 October 2019. 2. The claim against QG Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. KD provided contra...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 55 APPLICANT SB RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by SB against G Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. SB purchased an [fireplace brand] floor standing fireplace from G Ltd. SB now brings a claim against G Ltd for $4,205.05. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is the fireplace reasonably fit for purp...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 131 APPLICANT BT Ltd RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons: 1. LN, director of BT Ltd claimed for payment of the last two invoices he sent to X Ltd dated 31 May 2022 and 30 June 2022. X Ltd filed a late counterclaim for hours LN claimed to have worked while in isolation, on public holi...