12515 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1474 APPLICANT NO RESPONDENT [Council] The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In August 2020 NO’s copper hot water cylinder began to leak. He had it replaced by the I Shop at a cost of $2,167.75 and he claims this amount from the Council. 2. NO claims that the damage to the cylinde...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 241 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT LN The Tribunal orders: LN is to pay U Ltd $1960 by 26 April 2024 and may be paid into [bank account]. Reasons 1. LN booked into [Motel] for 2 weeks from 9 October 2023. The standard night rate was $140. SC, as representative for U Ltd, the owner of the motel, offered a reduced night rate if it w...
...communication, as well as the coordinated preparation of all the paperwork. [11] As for the concern raised that Mr Chiv had apparently failed to maintain client confidentiality at all times, it was submitted that the disclosure of confidential information “albeit one-off for administrative efficiency”, fell under one of the exceptions for disclosing confidential information. The disclosure was permitted because it had the clients’ express authorisation. The clients had appoi...
LCRO 209/2016 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN YH Applicant AND SM Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mrs YH has applied for a review of the determination by [City] Standards Committee [X] (the Committee) to t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court - [2022] NZDT 126 APPLICANT GQ Ltd RESPONDENT OD Ltd The Tribunal orders: OD Ltd is to pay GQ Ltd the amount of $21,605.52 on or before 16 September 2022 Reason 1. The applicant owns the property at [Address]. Since 2018 it had been leased to the respondent. The applicant says it has suffered losses of $62,362.03 but has waved...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 93 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. On or about July 2022 T Ltd ordered a EX compressor, charger and battery kit (the kit) online through Q Ltd for $1079.00. 2. Q Ltd responded to the online order that the product was not available instore and would therefore h...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 402 APPLICANT IM RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 29 January 2024, while IM’s uninsured car was parked in a multi-level car parking building at [address] operated by X Ltd, the window glass was smashed and property was stolen from the car. There was insufficient evidence for the police to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 333 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT IF Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In October 2022 HT booked a cruise for himself and his daughter. The cruise was called the “[the cruise]” and was run by IF Ltd. 2. The cruise was due to start on 15 November 2022. Approximately two weeks before the voyage was due to...
...meeting with Council. KX has provided details of the approximately 34 hours of his time charged and argues that it was work that was necessary in order for CCC to be issued by Council (and therefore for the house to be sold). KX says it was also work requested by BE, but I find that even if it wasn’t, it was work that was reasonably part of D Ltd’s charge-up contract to complete the project and was certainly work that was of benefit to BE. I therefore find that BE is liable to pay the...
...upon date. 11. Further, Mr A stated the impact of the price increases which was out of their control meant that there has been a legal frustration of the current contract. Therefore rendering the contract to no longer be viable. He said that the applicants are not alone, as they have had to cancel other clients' contracts for the same reason. 12. I accept that building costs have certainly soared industry-wide since the pandemic. IN and KN showed good faith in offering to accep...