12515 items matching your search terms
...of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 154 APPLICANT NE and HE RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. The applicants obtained a quote from the respondent for a house removal. The quote was one of two obtained, and after negotiation, it was selected as the most cost effective. 2. The applicants verbally indicated their acceptance of the quote. A m...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 425 APPLICANT NC RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. On 1 March 2023, NC purchased a [car] from KU for $2,500.00. NC says KU misrepresented the car in the process of selling it to him and claims $1,614.03 made up of $500.00 to re-register the car, $371.23 to fix th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 490 APPLICANT HL Ltd RESPONDENT AH The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HL Ltd operates an inner city superette. The director, TA, said that on 15 July 2023 AH came into the store, and as he was serving her, her son’s scooter collided into one of the shop windows and damaged it. He cla...
BRIDGET ZONNEVELD (LABOUR INSPECTOR) v MAUDAARA LIMITED NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 155 [10 September 2015] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2015] NZEmpC 155 EMPC 238/2015 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN BRIDGET ZONNEVELD (LABOUR INSPECTOR) Applicant AND MAUDAARA LIMITED Respondent Hearing: (on the papers filed 7 September 2015) Counsel: A McIlroy, couns...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1545 APPLICANT US Ltd RESPONDENT NH The Tribunal orders: US Ltd is to pay NH a total of $8000.00 on or before Thursday 30 September 2021. Reasons: 1. On 27 March 2021, NH engaged US Ltd to supply and install a new .55 gauge Maxx colour steel roof at [Road] for $10,600.00 including GST. This included new underl...
...presumption in the Act that costs lie where they fall unless incurred unnecessarily as a result of either bad faith or allegations that are without substantial merit. [2] The first, second and fourth respondents to these proceedings filed applications for costs. The application by the first respondents (“the Slaters”) was dismissed in my substantive decision delivered on 17 April 2009. The costs applications by the second and fourth respondents were filed on 5 May 2009....
...[2019] NZHRRT 15. Due to publication restrictions this decision has been anonymised by the redaction of the true name of the plaintiff.] IN THE HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL [2019] NZHRRT 15 2 Introduction [1] In June 2015, the plaintiff requested a copy of the investigation file into a complaint of rape made by her to the Police in 2014. The Police response to this request was the subject of an investigation by the Privacy Commissioner. A Certificate of Investigation dated...
...[Road A] onto [Road B], [City] heading towards [suburb]. The two lanes on his side of the road merged to one. At around where the lanes merge the front of EL’s car collided with the driver’s door of MN‘s car 2. EL and his insurer, K Ltd, claim $8,615.04 for the repair costs to EL’s car. EL has paid the excess under his insurance policy ($500.00) and the remaining repair costs have been paid by K Ltd 3. The issues to be resolved are: a) Did MN fail to give way to EL? b) Did...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 58 APPLICANT FN RESPONDENT Y Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. This order replaces my order of 2 February 2024. 2. Y Ltd is to pay FN $2999.00 on or before 5pm on 12 March 2024. 3. FN is to return the laptop to Y Ltd on or before 5pm on 13 March 2024. Reasons 1. I made a typographical error in my order of 2 February 2024. T...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 601 APPLICANT S Ltd RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. S Ltd’s application is dismissed. Reasons 2. On 2 November 2021, S Ltd was contacted by an employee of E Ltd and was asked to design and price a kitchen for a customer for whom E Ltd was building a home. On 22 November E Ltd followed up on the quotes. The design and...