12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 451 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT T Ltd APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) T Insurance The Tribunal orders: A claim by TD against T Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. TD has owned a lifestyle block at [Town] for about 18 years. Recently a barn on the property was severely damaged and TD applied to her insurance company T Ltd for f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 687 APPLICANT MK & NK RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay $1748.00 to MK and NK on or before 31 January 2024 and the balance of the claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In May 2022, MK and NK engaged B Ltd to re-roof their commercially-tenanted house in [Suburb]. MK and NK accepted B Ltd’s written quotation for $...
...Fourth Respondent (Removed) AND BARRY WALSH Fifth Respondent AND BRETT MCWILLIAMS Sixth Respondent AND WEI WEI ZHANG Seventh Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER 7 Dated 20 August 2010 Application for removal by the Waitakere City Council and Doug Kaill 1. The Waitakere City Council and Doug Kaill have both applied to be removed as parties to this claim. Doug Kaill’s company Design and Build Co Limited did the design...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 574 APPLICANT LA RESPONDENT KZ The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: KZ is to pay $900.00 to LA on or before 12 December 2023. Reasons 1. LA moved into a flatting situation in which KZ was the head tenant. They signed a 1-year fixed contract and LA paid $1350.00 bond and $450.00 per week rent. 2. LA moved...
...[1] Judgment was issued in these proceedings on 26 October 2021.1 It dealt with two challenges arising from a determination of the Employment Relations Authority.2 Ms Stenhouse challenged the whole of the determination and added a claim alleging that Towman Towing Group Ltd had breached her right to privacy.3 [2] Towman’s challenge was confined to disputing the Authority’s conclusion that a personal grievance had arisen because of the circumstances in which Ms Ste...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 622 APPLICANT MX APPLICANT MY RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: F Ltd is to pay MX and MY as trustees of the M Trust $6941.29 on or before Friday 8 December 2023. Reasons: 1. In November 2021, the Applicants accepted a quote from F Ltd (the company) for $9,327.00, reduced by $1000.00 from the original quote of $10,327.00. T...
LCRO 7/2012 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Wellington Standards Committee BETWEEN ND Of Auckland Applicant AND VC Of Auckland Respondent The names and indentifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] Mr ND (the Applicant) had sent an invoice to A for services rendered....
...The deduction was made pursuant to the provisions of s 70 of the Social Security Act 1964. Background [3] The appellant was granted New Zealand Superannuation at the Living Alone rate from 16 January 2014. We understand that at the time of her application she was in receipt of a Sickness Benefit and had been in receipt of this benefit since 2009. [4] As part of the application requirements the appellant was required to make an application for a pension from the United Kingdom, as she...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1347 APPLICANT MD RESPONDENT O Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. MD sent a computer to her daughter using a courier service through her employer. MD’s employer has a book of postal credits associated with the return of magazine ‘headers’ for audit purposes. MD sent the compu...
...dealt with on the papers filed, and in light of oral submissions advanced during the course of a telephone conference on 4 February 2022. The three applications are: an application by the plaintiff for leave to amend their statement of claim; an application by the plaintiff to exclude a document from the bundle; and an application by the plaintiff to exclude two paragraphs from a witness’s brief of evidence on the basis that they contain inadmissible statements. I deal w...