12922 items matching your search terms
WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2009-101-000026 BETWEEN LLOYD & JOANNE DIXON Claimant AND PETER THOMAS DIXON AND DARRYL THOMAS DIXON AS TRUSTEES OF THE PETER DIXON FAMILY TRUST First Respondent AND KEY HOMES TAURANGA LIMITED Second Respondent AND NEIL PAGE Third Respondent AND MICHAEL COOK (REMOVED) Fourth Respondent AND WILLIAM NICHOLSON Fifth Respondent AND JOHN TURNER Sixth Respondent AND MALCOLM HUNT S
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 788 APPLICANT S Ltd RESPONDENT CD SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: K Ltd and CD are jointly and severally liable to pay S Ltd $4,722.18 on or before Friday 1 December 2023. Reasons: 1. In October 2021 S Ltd opened a trade account for K Ltd, which was personally guaranteed by the majority shareholder fo...
...In the alternative Bluegum seeks further time to respond to Puketotara’s notice of opposition and application. [5] At the request of the Registry, Puketotara indicated by email dated 1 February 2024, that it had no objection to Bluegum’s requested deferral of a determination on the costs application. [6] Bluegum does not set out in its application the grounds on which it seeks that the determination of costs be deferred. In support of its original position for a stay on en...
...illegal strike. This is because the requirements of s 83(b) of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the ER Act) would not be met since the proposed strikes do not relate to bargaining for a collective agreement but to bargaining for a pay equity claim. [3] The defendant strongly opposed the application. It said the strike and proposed strike, if they were to proceed, would be legal, and that the application for relief should be dismissed. Background The parties [4] The part...
...possession of the unfinished pod and had someone else complete the work and installation. He was charged $1,050.00 for this by the other provider. He sought a refund of the $1,200.00 he had paid to EX, and when this was not forthcoming, he filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal. 3. This is a claim by CF for $1,200.00 for breach of contract by EX. 4. The issues to be determined were as follows: a. Was there a legally binding contract between the parties, in particular did the pa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 334 APPLICANT HK and QK RESPONDENT JF Ltd The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: JF Ltd is to pay HK and QK the sum of $5021.38 on or before 23 June 2023. Reasons 1. HK and QK contracted JF Ltd to provide landscaping services and materials for their new swimming pool, including the laying of copi
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 283 APPLICANT BX APPLICANT JD RESPONDENT ML The Tribunal orders: 1. ML is to pay $9,000.00 to JD on or before 23 January 2023. Reasons: 2. This matter had previously been part heard and adjourned for ML to seek legal advice. 3. On 19 August 2022 at approximately 6.30pm JD was driving his Toyota truck alo...
...remaining $2,725.50, and emailed an invoice for the total sum. Mrs QS did not believe she had authorised the advertising fee, and was also unhappy with the quality of the sample advertisements. She requested a refund, which GJG refused. [3] SQS now claims $5,451.00, representing a full refund of the two payments that make up GJG’s twelve-month advertising fee. It does not claim any refund of GJG’s “ad creation” fee of $99.00 plus GST. Issues [4] The issues to be dete...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1565 APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT BU Ltd The Tribunal orders: BU Ltd is to pay NL the sum of $420.00 on or before 18 August 2021. Reasons: 1. On 6th June 2021 NL was parked at CT while visiting DG Gym. She came out of the DG gym approximately 45 minutes later and discovered that her car had been towed. She then le...
...JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for costs - s 148, Accident Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] These are appeals from: (1) the decision of the Corporation on 28 October 2020 awarding costs following the resolution of a series of review applications; and (2) the decision of a Reviewer dated 24 March 2021 dismissing a series of review applications and making a limited award of costs. 2 Background [2] On 31 March 2020, the Corporation referred a Training for Ind...