12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 736 APPLICANT XN RESPONDENT BP The Tribunal orders: BP is to pay XN $3,192.00 on or before Monday 15 January 2024. Reasons 1. XN said he traded in his [motor vehicle 1] to BP and upgraded to a [motor vehicle 2]. BP agreed to pay him $2,142 for the 2004 vehicle and sell him the [motor vehicle 2]for $7,458 so that the net effe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 325 APPLICANT O Ltd RESPONDENT MX SECOND RESPONDENT V Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. U Ltd is removed as a respondent at the applicant’s request. 2. O Ltd is entitled to possession of the [car] and is therefore not liable to pay $4,500.00 to V Ltd purs...
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...
CLAIM NO: TRI-2007-101-000031 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of an adjudication BETWEEN Timothy John Scott Claimants AND Bronwyn Hardaker First Respondent AND Eliot Sinclair &Partners Limited Second Respondent AND T J Hooper Third Respondent AND Christchurch City Council Fourth Respondent ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL Dated 4 October...
...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 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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 758 APPLICANT NM APPLICANT TX RESPONDENT KC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NM and TX own a home in [City] which shares a boundary with the home owned by KC. In July 2022 NM and TX say they were approached by KC’s father who also lives at the adjacent property. They say [KC’s father] noted con
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...
...Hawea/Wanaka Substitute land (being Section 2 of 5 Block XIV, Lower Wanaka SD) The Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, Section 455(1); Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993, Sections 29 and 113; and The Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement, Clause 15.6.2 Form 01 Rule 4.2, 16.1, 4.5, 10.9(2) For more information, email mlcsilna@justice.govt.nz WHAT IS THIS FORM FOR? This application form has been modified specifically for use in determining the successors for South Island Landless Natives...
...[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...