Search Results

1. [2019] NZSSAA 21 (20 March 2019) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...is the appellant’s child and that the Authority does not need to make a finding on this issue. He agreed that the only issue for determination is whether a birth certificate issued by BDM is required for the appellant to complete the benefit application process. Relevant law [9] The process of applying for a benefit is governed by s 11D of the Social Security Act 1964 (the Act):1 11D Application process for benefits 1 Replaced on 28 November 2018 by the Social Security...

2. KT & MT v HT [2023] NZDT 98 (16 March 2023) [pdf, 178 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 98 APPLICANT KT APPLICANT MT RESPONDENT HT The Tribunal orders: HT is to pay $3,000.00 to KT and MT by the 6 April 2023. Reasons 1. HT was employed by a company, H Ltd which is owned by KT and MT. HT asked for a loan and an advance of $5000 was made by KT and MT from their personal funds. No payment date was...

3. EH v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 599 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...

4. Sax v Commissioner of Police (Strike-Out – Privacy) [2022] NZHRRT 34 [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...force at the time the actions subject to this claim were taken. BACKGROUND Filing of claim and response [8] The alleged privacy breaches largely relate to actions by Police in 2011 and the earlier part of 2012. Ms Sax complains that personal information held by Police was inaccurate and that the failure of Police to correct that information and to publish it breached Information Privacy Principles (IPPs) 2 to 11. [9] The Office of the Privacy Commissioner (OPC) investigated a s...

5. ADH v ZWS [2011] NZDT 169 (28 June 2011) [pdf, 95 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2011] NZDT 169 BETWEEN ADH APPLICANT AND ZWS Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 28 June 2011 Referee: Referee Davidson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Applicant’s claim is dismissed. Pursuant to s 11(2)(b) of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 the Applicant, ADH, must pay the Respondent, ZWS Limited, $625.00 (incl GST) within 7 days of the date of this Order....

6. NP v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 502 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 502 APPLICANT NP RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. NP had a collision in her car, a [vehicle], in December 2023. NP had insured her car with B Ltd, who arranged for the repairs to be done. NP was due to collect her car after it had been repaired on 17 January 2024, but B Ltd advised her the rep...

7. I Ltd v V Ltd [2024] NZDT 97 (18 January 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 97 APPLICANT I Ltd RESPONDENT V Ltd The Tribunal orders: V Ltd is to pay $353.35 to I Ltd on or before 9 February 2024. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. V Ltd operates a business that supplies models for fashion shoots. I Ltd engaged a model (OB) through V Ltd for a photoshoot in [City 1] on 15-16 May 2023. OB flew fro...

8. Council v HL [2020] NZDT1493 (27 February 2020) [pdf, 185 KB]

   Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1493 APPLICANT [City] Council RESPONDENT HL The Tribunal hereby orders: HL is to pay [City] Council the sum of $5,976.93 within 28 days of the date of this order. Reasons: 1. In the early hours of 19 August 2018 HL was driving his vehicle on [Street] [City] when he lost control of his vehicle and hit a traffic light pole located a...

9. XI v N Ltd & T Ltd [2021] NZDT 1603 (3 August 2021) [pdf, 181 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1603 APPLICANT XI RESPONDENT N Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. 1. In August 2016, XI had a pacemaker implanted in China, supplied by N Ltd China. In June - August 2020, she experienced health issues while she was visiting New Zealand (NZ). The decision was...

10. NX v P Ltd [2023] NZDT 212 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 107 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 212 APPLICANT NX RESPONDENT P Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] NX claims compensation of $375.00 from P Ltd, represented by QD and TD, managers, in its capacity as a manufacturer for what he considers is a breach of a consumer guarantee relating to a [car radio unit]. P Ltd denies liability....