12527 items matching your search terms
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 017 Ref: LCRO 78/2019 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of [AREA] Standards Committee X BETWEEN EW Applicant AND PT and AM Respondents The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr EW filed an Appli...
...Section 49 of the Act provides that a claimant may apply to the Chair seeking a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the eligibility criteria within 20 working days of receiving notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. 2 [3] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: the application for review and attached submissions; the letter from Graha...
...Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 IN THE MATTER OF Whakatōhea - an application for review of an order made pursuant to s 30, Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 at 69 Opotiki MB 11-26 dated 2 February 1994 BETWEEN ADRIANA EDWARDS Applicant Hearing: 5-7 March 2018 (Heard at Ōhope) Coram: Appearances: Judge C T Coxhead (Presiding) K Prime H W Colbert C Hirschfeld, T Sinclar and B Tupara for the Applicant C Linkhorn, G Gilli...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 611 APPLICANT C Ltd RESPONDENT EN The Tribunal orders: EN is to pay C Ltd $1191.91 on or before the 12th day of December 2023. The money may be paid into account number [redacted]. Reasons: Introduction: 1. EN had entered into a contract with C Ltd on a 3G unlimited plan. 2. XX was the network owner and operator....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 550 APPLICANT DS RESPONDENT HW The Tribunal orders: 1) HW’s claim against DS is struck out. 2) DS’s claim against HW is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 10 April 2021, DS took his son’s motorbike engine to HW for repairs and parts. He said that the bike was working but jumped when it was kickstarted. He paid $800.00 to...
...3 Payment 16 Fee schedule 16 Change of lawyers 16 Disbursements 17 Travel 17 Interpreters/translators 17 Payment arrangements 17 Relationship with Legal Aid 18 Court entry 18 Concurrent legal aid cases 18 Without Notice applications 18 Appendix 1 – Glossary 19 Appendix 2 – Financial Eligibility Thresholds 21 Appendix 3 – Funding Declaration Form Example 22 Appendix 4 – Family Legal Advice Service (FLAS) Stages 26 Appendix 5 – Family Legal Advice...
...was to pay the remaining $1000 at a later date. 2. SW started having issues with the vehicle. She reported these to L Ltd and asked for their help. L Ltd responded but as it would not uplift the car and repair it at their cost, SW filed her claim in the Tribunal seeking to cancel the contract, payment of a full refund and associated costs, and for L Ltd to uplift the car. 3. The issues to be decided are: i. Has there been a breach of the guarantee of acceptable quality in the...
...scan, Austen would have to be put down. TD paid $5,000 to the vet. 5. The MRI scan revealed no sign of a dog bite, and that the partial paralysis Austen was suffering from was caused by a congenital condition, Syringomyelia, exacerbated by some form of trauma, such as a dog bite to the neck, a hard pull on a lead and possibly even Austen violently shaking himself. 6. The vet bills came to an additional $1,639.79 which, in view of the diagnosis, TD told the vet she would not pay....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 51 APPLICANT P Ltd RESPONDENT AH SECOND RESPONDENT LH The Tribunal orders: The claim by P Ltd against AH and LH is proved and AH and LH are to pay P Ltd $15,679.50 on or by 5:00pm on 28 February 2023. Reasons 1. On 08 January 2020, P Ltd entered into an agency agreement with AH and LH for the sale of a l...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 778 BETWEEN BY LIMITED APPLICANT AND BYB SECOND APPLICANT AND YB RESPONDENT AND YBY SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 5 May 2015 Referee: Referee Smallholme ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim in relation to the legality of the drainage installed by BY Limited and BYB is struck out. The claim in relation to fencing costs and legal fees is...