12542 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1420 APPLICANT CU RESPONDENT DN Ltd trading as TT The Tribunal hereby orders that: 1. DN Ltd is to pay CU the sum of $14,872.00 on or before the 14 October 2019. 2. DN Ltd is to collect the Masport Goliath Ride on Mower from CU’s home address after the 14 October 2019. Reasons: 1. On 1 December 2017 CU...
...1 [This decision is to be cited as: Director of Human Rights Proceedings v Wellington Advkit Services Ltd (Joinder of Second and Third Defendants) [2015] NZHRRT 11] 2 Introduction [1] This is an application by the Director of Human Rights Proceedings that Mr Mike Dixon-McIver (also known as Douglas Vincent Dixon-McIver) and Mr Mark Basford be joined as second and third defendants to these proceedings. Outline of Director’s case [2]
...Self-represented Complainant: Self-represented Adviser: S Laurent, J Turner, counsel 2 PRELIMINARY [1] Mr Damon Parker, the adviser, represented Ms [NT], the complainant, who sought residence under the skilled migrant category. Her application failed as Immigration New Zealand found she provided false and misleading information. Her complaint is that she was left to work with a staff member of Mr Parker’s company, Ms Jessie Cheng, who is also his wife. Furthermore, M...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 944 BETWEEN DK APPLICANT AND DKD INSURANCE LIMITED APPLICANT’S INSURER AND VP LIMITED RESPONDENT AND VPV RESPONDENT’S INSURER Date of Order: 6 April 2016 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VP Limited is to pay the sum of $2,475.16 directly to DKD Insurance Limited on or before 27 April 2016, and the claim is dismissed agai...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 127 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT UN The Tribunal orders: UN is ordered to pay KQ the sum of $2,300.00. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 2 June 2023. Reasons: 1) In October 2021, the applicant bought a dog from the respondent. UN is a dog breeder. The price paid was $3,000.00. At the time of the sale, the dog was 6...
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 84 APPLICANT CQ RESPONDENT DW The Tribunal orders: DW is to pay CQ the sum of $5,980.00 on or before 10 February 2023. Reasons: 1. CQ and DW own adjoining properties in [community]. In May 2022 CQ served a fencing notice on DW. The notice indicated that CQ wanted to repair the concrete post and wire fence between their propert...
...SOLAR BRIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2021] NZEmpC 36 [25 March 2021] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2021] NZEmpC 36 EMPC 312/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for rehearing AND IN THE MATTER of an application for access to court documents by Murray Spackman BETWEEN PATRICK MARTIN Applicant AND SOLAR BRIGHT LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) Respondent He...
PANOVSKI V MARINE TRIMMERS AND ALL AWNINGS 2004 LTD AK AC 54/07 24 October 2007 IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND AC 54/07 ARC 55/07 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file out of time BETWEEN BLAGOJA PANOVSKI Plaintiff AND MARINE TRIMMERS AND ALL AWNINGS 2004 LIMITED Defendant Hearing: 24 October 2007 (Heard at Auckland) Appearances: Glenn Finnigan, counsel for plaintiff Michael Robinson, counsel for defendant Judgment: 24 October 2007...
...CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee No. 3 BETWEEN MR LARNARK MR LEICHSTER MS QUILT of Auckland Applicants AND MR KIRKBY of Auckland Practitioner The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Application for review [1] This application arises from circumstan...
...complaint to Netsafe, Mr Z received a Case Summary from Netsafe. Mr Z was then able to, and did, issue proceedings against the three aggrieved persons in the District Court. Mr Z also applied for interim orders against the three defendants. His application for interim orders was on a without notice basis, meaning the three aggrieved persons had no knowledge of the application and were not heard by the Court before the application was determined. After initially referring the matter ba...