12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 85 APPLICANT XQ RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay XQ $107.61 on or before 25 February 2022. Reasons 1. On about 4 October 2021, XQ bought an automotive [item] from T Ltd through Trademe. He asked a mechanic to install the [item]. When installed, the mechanic found the vehicle did not run correctly....
...of the guarantee of acceptable quality in the Consumer Guarantees Act? b. If yes, is IO Ltd liable for damages, and if so how much, for the following: i. Refund or replacement ii. Consequential financial losses iii. Consequential losses in the form of emotional harm. c. If yes, is TF Ltd liable for damages, and if so how much, for the following: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 i. Refund or replacement ii. Consequential financial losses iii. Consequential losses in the form of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 106 APPLICANT TN RESPONDENT KM The Tribunal orders: KM is to pay TN $1,552.96 within 28 days. KM did not appear at the hearing. Reasons [1] TN claims from KM the cost of replacing carpet in a room that KM had occupied in his, TN’s, house. TN also claims the cost of professional carpet cleaning and materials. [2] TN said that...
...APPLICANT K Ltd RESPONDENT EN The Tribunal orders: EN is to pay K Ltd the amount of $2,055.00 on or before 29 January 2024. Reason 1. The respondent suffered damage to their dwelling which was the subject of an insurance claim. The insurer obtained a quote from the applicant, and agreed to cash settle the respondents claim for the amount of the applicants quote less the excess. The applicant carried out the work and issued an invoice as per the quote, though l...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 690 APPLICANT LT RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay LT the sum of $65 on or before 6 December 2024. Reasons 1. LT is the owner of a car, driven by her daughter who parked for 7 minutes beyond the 180 minute parking limit at a private carpark on [Street]. 2. LT’s daughter was parked there while she used the gy...
...NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 120 EMPC 413/2019 EMPC 444/2019 IN THE MATTER OF matters removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for costs BETWEEN SMITHS CITY (SOUTHERN) LIMITED (IN RECEIVERSHIP) Plaintiff AND JEREMY WALTER ETTLES CLAXTON First Defendant AND CANDO CREATIVE FLOORING LIMITED Second Defendant AND...
...value of the boundary fence. KZ voluntarily made a contribution to the cost of the fence. Accordingly, the counterclaim must also be dismissed. Referee: L. Mueller Date: 22 April 2024 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 [2024] NZDT 42 APPLICANT MS RESPONDENT UM The Tribunal orders: UM is to pay the sum of $493.22 to MS by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. MS and UM are neighbours with a shared driveway. MS’s property is lower than UM’s and is in a dip. 2. MS’s property flooded on three occasions during storms in 2023. MS claims the floodi...
...Deputy Chairperson Dr SJ Hickey, MNZM Member Ms SP Stewart, Member REPRESENTATION: Mr WC Timmo (in person) Mr J Cox for defendant DATE OF HEARING: Heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 17 August 2023 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM1 [1] Mr Timmo’s claim is an Information Privacy Principle 6 case (access to personal information). Specifically, Mr Timmo alleges that ICL NZ Ltd interfered with his privacy when it responded to Mr Timmo’s requests for his personal...
...concluded that with no primary decision having been made by the Corporation as to whether Mr Frankpitt had deemed cover, that was the extent of the Reviewer’s jurisdiction; and there was no unreasonable delay by the Corporation in processing claims by Mr Frankpitt for entitlements. The Court dismissed the appeal against the Reviewer’s decision, for the reasons outlined below. 1 Frankpitt v Accident Compensation Corporation (Deemed [2022] NZACC 98. 2 Background [...