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 237 APPLICANT L APPLICANT SD RESPONDENT O The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 2. Sometime in August or September 2022 SD said he was towing a tandem trailer behind his small truck, driving between [Town 1] and [Town 2] when he claims a tyre on his trailer was damaged as a result of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2016] NZDT 1407 APPLICANT IB RESPONDENT IY RESPONDENT'S INSURER JB Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: IY is to pay the sum of $1,846.44 to IB on or before 10 March 2016. Reasons: 1. On 14 September 2015, there was a collision between IB’s car and IY’s car on C Place, [Suburb]. At the time of the impact, both...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 619 APPLICANT LX RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by LX against O Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. LX owns land on which high voltage power lines run across part of it. LX now brings a claim against O Ltd for $30,000.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Did O Ltd breach the agreement? (b) If not, was O Ltd n...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 701 APPLICANT ED APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT NQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ED and KD and NQ own adjoining properties at [Town]. Currently there is an area of approximately 25 metres on the boundary that is unfenced. ED and KD approached NQ with fencing proposals. As they did not get a definitive respon...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 214 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. Just over 3 years ago, HC says he purchased a T Ltd Smartwatch as part of a mobile phone bundle from a supplier. He could not recall the price of the bundle, but thought the watch at the time was valued at about $300.00. HC sa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 247 APPLICANT DC RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. Around February 2018 F Ltd provided a pre-purchase inspection to DC for a property at [address] that she was interested in purchasing. DC purchased that property, she says on the basis that F Ltd had told her the property was a dry, well-built hous...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 264 APPLICANT OU RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In August 2023, OU bought two tickets through [ticket company] for “[concert]” in [city] on [date], for $356.30 (which included afterpay fees). However, [city council] advertised a special price of $99.00 for the tickets, in a rates notice o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 296 APPLICANT BW RESPONDENT HN APPLICANT'S INSURER B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 30 November 2022 BW and HN were involved in a collision in the [community centre] carpark. An event at the community centre had just finished, and multiple cars were leaving the car park. BW...
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 518 APPLICANT LG RESPONDENT C Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The intituling of this order has been amended to correct the address of the respondent. That correction has been made, but no other changes have been made to the reasons for the decision. Reasons: 1. C Ltd operates a business leasing shipping containers on its land to be used...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 267 APPLICANT FS RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 30 July 2022, while driving from [City 1] to [City 2], FS’ [car] went into limp mode. The vehicle was towed to Q Ltd in [City 3] where a fault was diagnosed and repaired at a cost of $3745.50. When tested, the vehicle went...