12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1521 APPLICANT KY RESPONDENT TU Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: TU Limited is to pay the sum of $150.00 to KY on or before Thursday 6 June 2019. Reasons: 1. On 1 March 2019, KY dropped her friend at the [redacted] Embassy at [address]. She parked and followed her friend inside. By the time they returned to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 638 APPLICANT BG RESPONDENT P Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BG against P Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. ED, made upper and lower dentures for BG. BG now brings a claim against P Ltd which is the respondent company, in the sum of $4000.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Did ED provide their services with reasonable car...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 452 APPLICANT H Ltd RESPONDENT TB The Tribunal orders: TB is to pay the sum of $3,000.00 to H Ltd on or before Tuesday 3 October 2023. Reasons: 1. On 13 April 2023, car dealer H Ltd (the buyer) paid $2,000.00 to TB (the seller) for a [car] with mileage of around 173,000 km. The seller agreed to deliver the car in th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 796 APPLICANT WT RESPONDENT DX APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The Claim is dismissed for the reasons set out below. Reasons 1. WT purchased a [breed redacted] puppy (“N”) from DX for $2,000 on or about 8 December 2023. 2. Around the age of 3 months, N began limping. After veterinarian i...
...The defendant, Mr Wildbore, was employed by the plaintiff to work in that café. The employment relationship began in March 2011. In March 2012, it came to an end. [2] Mr Wildbore alleged that he had been unjustifiably dismissed and lodged a claim to that effect with the Employment Relations Authority (the Authority). He also made a claim for arrears of wages and holiday pay. The Authority sustained those claims and awarded him remedies totalling about $11,500. Ms Jerard chal...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1600 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay D Ltd the sum of $8,072.15 on or before 5pm on 9 July 2021. Reasons 1. On 1 November 2017 the parties executed a Sale and Purchase agreement. A further term of that agreement required a retainer of $20,000.00 be held in the B Ltd (B)...
...ARCHITECT LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 1496058) Fourth Respondent AND DSF BUILDERS LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 1863635) Fifth Respondent AND CONTRACT HOLDINGS LIMITED (COMPANY NUMBER 636388) Sixth Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER 4 Removal application by fourth respondent - declined Dated 16 February 2024 2 Introduction [1] The fourth respondent has applied to be removed from this proceeding under s 112 of the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 200...
...parked at the A Ltd [Redacted] car park for approximately 45 minutes in the early evening of 11 February this year. CX has paid $6 to A Ltd (which he notes is twice the $3 fee he would have had to pay had he obtained a ticket) and has filed this claim with the Tribunal seeking a declaration that he is not liable to pay the remaining $59 (although in the claim form the sum he noted was the entire $65). 2. The issues I need to decide are: a. Was it a condition of a contract between CX...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1415 APPLICANT UQD Ltd RESPONDENT KN RESPONDENT INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay the sum of $2172.40 to UQD Ltd on or before 14 October 2020. Reasons 1. On 25 February 2019 KN negligently caused damage to UQD Ltd’s 1994 Nissan Largo van (fitted out as a campervan) and driven b...
...the ‘reduced value’ assessment should be less than those costs but not by a significant degree. 23. Using ST Ltd’s lower figure for re-doing the part of the driveway, I consider the difference between $24,248.00 ($21,085+GST) and ST Ltd’s claimed balance outstanding of $15,636,55 more than enough of a reduction from an ‘actual’ redo cost, to recognise that an actual redo will not be occurring in the near future. 24. For all the above reasons, I find that FS is not liable...