12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 126 APPLICANT EU RESPONDENT BQ The Tribunal orders: BQ is ordered to pay EU the sum of $3,447.50. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 21 July 2023. Reasons: 1) There was no appearance of the respondent and the hearing proceeded in his absence. On 27 February 2023 the applicant bought a vehicle from the responden...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1633 APPLICANT JU Ltd RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: U Ltd is to pay JU Ltd the sum of $2,111.79 on or before 20 November 2021. Reasons: 1. JU Ltd owns a rental property, insured with U Ltd. The policy includes accidental and malicious damage by the tenants. In December 2020 the tenants moved out, and JU...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2015] NZDT 1492 APPLICANT BT & FT FIRST RESPONDENT [Redacted] Council SECOND RESPONDENT [Redacted] Transport THIRD RESPONDENT XQ Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On Tuesday 24 March 2015 at around 8:50 am, FT was driving down [Redacted] Rise,...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 29 APPLICANT QN APPLICANT KI APPLICANT FJ RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: 1. The name of the respondent is amended to KN. 2. KN is to pay to QN the sum of $3,223.99 on or before 21 March 2024. Reasons: 1. FJ was the registered owner of a [vehicle] in September 2023. The car had been paid for by KI. FJ and KI...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 309 APPLICANT BL RESPONDENT SI The Tribunal orders: SI is to pay BL $2,239.00 on or before 26 April 2024. Reasons: 1. BL did some work as a contractor for SI on a farm SI was leasing from her parents. 2. BL now claims $2,239.00 from SI for work done in July 2023. 3. SI denies the claim on the basis that BL did not do any work...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 65 APPLICANT BH RESPONDENT JT APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) W Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BH is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 August 2023, BH’s [vehicle] was damaged while it was parked outside [address]. BH’s daughter who was the driver at the time believed the damage was caused by JT...
........................................................................................ 6 AODT defence lawyers ............................................................................................................................................ 7 Applications for a criminal legal aid grant ................................................................................................................... 8 Assignment of AODT legal aid grants ..............................................
...He now seeks to appeal that decision to the High Court. [5] The essential issue for me is whether the questions now raised ought to be determined by the High Court, given their very late emerging nature, the failure to submit the relevant claims to the Corporation for determination and/or the inability of the questions to change the outcome of this appeal. BACKGROUND [6] There is a long history to Mr Chalecki’s claim for compensation for his farming expenses and losses, a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1432 APPLICANT SM RESPONDENT CT The Tribunal orders: CT is to pay SMSM $3,400.00 by Friday 28 August 2020. Reasons 1. SM purchased a vehicle from CT for $3,400.00. According to text messages from CT to SM, CT said he had purchased the vehicle from a friend who left the country. A finance company has a se...
...to EB on or before Friday 25 November 2022. 2. D Ltd is to pay the further sum of $49.28 to EB on or before Friday 25 November 2022 if this sum has not already been paid. Reasons: 1. The respondent D Ltd is the former property manager for the applicants. The applicants are unhappy with the services provided in relation to two tenancies, the first from December 2018 to March 2022, and the second from 12 to 27 March 2022. 2. The applicants now claim $4,870.00 from the respondent, comp...