12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1413 APPLICANT RT Ltd RESPONDENT LC SECOND RESPONDENT NC The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. LC is to pay RT Ltd $711.32 on or before 13 August 2020. 2. NC is struck out as a respondent party to the claim. Reasons: 1. RT Ltd operates a wheel clamping and towing business. RT Ltd alleges it clamped a vehi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 306 APPLICANT LL RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by LL against U Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. LL purchased some sound equipment via [purchase option] on the U Ltd website. The purchased items were paid for but never delivered. LL now brings a claim against U Ltd for $720.00. 2. LL attended the hearing but U Ltd did...
...Auckland Council is directed to serve Liansen Mao by: Auckland Council v Zhang & ors - ex p interim enforcement orders 2 (a) Delivering a physical copy of all of the enforcement order documentation (including the supporting affidavits) to 387 (formerly 423) Ormiston Road, Flat Bush. (b) Posting a physical copy of notice of the application to Mr Mao's address in China. (c) Posting a physical copy of notice of the application to PO Box 276138, Manukau City, Auckland....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 561 APPLICANT M Ltd RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: a) G Ltd is to pay M Ltd $16,080.34 within 30 days of the date of this order. Reasons 1. In December 2022, M Ltd sold [a vehicle] to a customer in the [Region] area. Soon after, a fault was found and G Ltd was engaged to undertake repairs. The repairs were completed and...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2014] NZDT 562 BETWEEN AQ APPLICANT AND ZJ RESPONDENT Date of Order: 16 April 2014 Referee: Referee Murphy ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the family name of the respondent is amended because the name was spelt incorrectly on the claim. The respondent (ZJ) is to pay the applicants (AQ) $1,405 by 5 May 2014. Facts [1] AQ (the applicants) and ZJ (the respondent) had a...
...the papers before the Tribunal. [17] The written agreement accurately identified the difficulties with a section 35A application. It is unsurprising that Ms ICQ would have a further oral discussion regarding the difficulties Ms LLC faced, as she claims. The record is not consistent with an adviser who was acting in ignorance, under a mistake, or misleading her client. [18] Ms LLC’s assertion that she was not informed finds no support in the contemporaneous record. [19] The fee cha...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1487 APPLICANT EU RESPONDENT LX The Tribunal hereby orders: LX is to pay the sum of $3,703.31 to EU on or before Wednesday 6 November 2019. Reasons: 1. In February 2014, LX and his former partner instructed EU to act on their behalf in relation to sale of a jointly owned property. LX’s share of the final...
...2019. One is North-Eastern Bay of Plenty (Wai 1750), where settlement negoti- ations in the 1990s had not concluded. This inquiry is expected to finish its hearings and be preparing its report by 2025. The other is Muriwhenua Land (Wai 45), where applications for binding remedies have required further hearing of historical claims. The Muriwhenua Tribunal is expected to report its findings before recommencing its consideration of the applications by 2025. For the historical claims in a...
...Appearances: Mr L Hansen for the appellant Mr M Campbell and Ms B Walley for the respondent Judgment: 29 June 2021 ____________________________________________________________________ RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE C J McGUIRE [Manner of Making a Claim s 60 Accident Insurance Act 1998] ____________________________________________________________________ [1] This is an appeal by the appellant against his unsuccessful review of the respondent’s decision to backdate his indepe...
...includes allegations that she did not initially tell Ms Xu that the visa had been declined, that she failed to inform Ms Xu of her unlawful presence in New Zealand, that she failed to obtain instructions and that she misrepresented the nature of an application Ms Xu signed. [2] Ms Tian admits she made mistakes, that she was negligent and that she breached the Code of Conduct, but denies being dishonest or misleading. The essential issue to consider is whether Ms Tian’s conduct...