12520 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 71 APPLICANT DE APPLICANT XE RESPONDENT SC The Tribunal orders: SC is to pay XE and DE $1,000.00 by 9 February 2024. Background 1. DE and XE purchased a [vehicle] that SC had listed for sale on Trade Me. 2. The listing described the vehicle as “Good body, tyres and interior. Not running”. 3. The purchase price was $...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 104 APPLICANT IC RESPONDENT CH The Tribunal orders: CH is to make available, on or before 21 October 2022, for packing and collection by a courier/transport company of IC’s choice, the [brand] crystal items that were the subject of the Trade Me auction won by IC on 7 November 2021; and On the confirmation of a...
...Taking instructions, attending the client • Preparing application for legal aid • Attempting to contact the client • Closing the file • Reporting to client • Reporting to and invoicing Ministry of Justice Note: This fee can only be claimed where initial instructions are not carried through and the file is closed prior to the completion of stage one of any proceedings. It cannot be claimed in conjunction with any other schedule. Application(s)/Order(s) Activity Fe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1678 APPLICANT OH RESPONDENT RI Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: [1] OH rented a three-bedroom apartment managed by RI Ltd (RI) for one week at a cost of $3,030.00. After checking in to the apartment, he discovered that one of the bedrooms had no window. OH delayed raising the is...
...facts in this case are clear and not in dispute. 1 [This decision is to be cited as: O’Hagan v Police [2020] NZHRRT 22. Note publication restrictions.] 2 [2] Mr O’Hagan made a request under IPP 6 for access to certain of his personal information held by the Police. The decision of the Police on that request was delivered 18 working days beyond the expiry of the 20 working days allowed by s 40(1) of the Privacy Act 19...
...which are entirely speculative and without foundation. (b) The cause of action for defence must be clearly untenable. (c) The jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, and only in clear cases. This reflects the Court’s reluctance to terminate a claim or defence short of trial. (d) The jurisdiction is not excluded by the need to decide difficult questions of law, requiring extensive argument. (e) The Court should be particularly slow to strike out a claim in any developing area o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 6 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT SL The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The Breed Certificate transfer should be issued to SL for [Horse] as if he had been paid for in full. Reasons 1. In October 2022, SL purchased a colt named [Horse] for $6,000.00 from BD. The sum of $500.00 was to be paid after delivery...
...both applications for student visas, Mr Angon identified himself in section M of the form as a licensed immigration adviser, and in the following section N he signed a certificate which included the following certification: “I certify that the applicant asked me to help them complete this form and any additional forms. I certify that the applicant agreed that the information provided was correct before signing the declaration. ... I have provided immigration advice (as defined in t...
...“position in a clear and forthright manner”. [26] Concerning Mrs AR’s request for directions, the Committee explained that its role was to consider and determine complaints about a lawyer’s conduct, “not to provide legal advice” as requested by Mrs AR. 5 Application for review [27] Mrs AR filed her application for review with this Office on 3 May 2018. She seeks (a) a “reprimand” for Mrs NM in respect of [Mrs NM’s] “unprofessional dealings” carrying...
...property at [address 1], and NQ is her partner. QG and NC own [address 2]. These properties share an adjoining boundary. This matter involves a claim filed by SS and NQ against all three respondents, and a counterclaim filed by QG and NC against the applicants, relating to the following events. 2. During 2021 a fence was erected on the shared boundary between [address 1] and [address 2]. QG and NC put forward the fencing proposal and engaged E Ltd to erect the fence. In June 202...