12922 items matching your search terms
...[2013] NZEmpC 199 [4 November 2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2013] NZEmpC 199 CRC 42/13 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for leave to file a statement of defence and cross-challenge out of time BETWEEN SEALORD GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff AND AARON PICKERING Defendant Hearing: On the papers filed by way of memoranda...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2017] NZDT 1675 APPLICANT SC RESPONDENT NI APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Insurance Company A RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) Insurance Company B The Tribunal hereby orders: SC is to pay Insurance Company B $3,499.00 on or before 9 January 2018. Reasons [1] SC was following a vehicle being dr...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 628 APPLICANT Q Ltd RESPONDENT SN SECOND RESPONDENT TT The Tribunal orders: SN and TT (jointly and severally) are to pay Q Ltd $1,600.00 by 11 September 2024. Background 1. The claim seeks payment for mortgage broking services. 2. Q Ltd (BS) says that it provided services to SN and TT subject to terms and conditions, including...
...an employee again took inside upon completion, and on 12 October, he completed another 10. When he was finished the last set, he asked TT for his payment. 4. NB says TT became angry and denied that NB had welded 28 chairs. According to NB, TT claimed he welded only 24, and that this was all he would pay for. The angered NB, and he left the premises without being paid, kicking down the stack of chairs he had welded as he left. He did not believe any of the chairs were damaged. He went...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 260 APPLICANT TC RESPONDENT UMA The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. TC purchased a [vehicle] in 2018 from UMA (an unlimited company). Prior to confirming purchase of the car, he was offered unlimited free super-charging for as long as he owned the vehicle. 2. At that time, there were about 13 super-chargers...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 421 APPLICANT KS APPLICANT QS RESPONDENT ZA The Tribunal orders: The Applicant’s claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The Applicants (KS and QS) and the Respondent (ZA) are neighbours. In June 2022, the property manager for ZA’s property (KZ) called ZA and told him KS and QS wished to discuss building a new...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 539 APPLICANT DC RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. DC was visiting K Ltd at about 8pm on a Sunday evening with friends. He asked the barman if he, the barman, could plug his phone in to charge, behind the bar. The barman agreed and plugged DC’s phone in. 2. At 8.20pm that night C...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 283 APPLICANT QH Ltd RESPONDENT BD APPLICANT'S INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: BD is to pay J Ltd $17,402.66 on or before 18 March 2024. Reasons 1. BD crashed into the large cantilever gate at the entrance to the QH Ltd premises. 2. QH Ltd and its insurer, J Ltd, claim $17,402.66 as a contribut...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 267 APPLICANT ND RESPONDENT MI Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. MI Ltd is added as the Respondent to this claim. 2. TN and SE are removed as parties to the proceedings. 3. MI Ltd are ordered to pay ND a sum of $80 by 5pm on 28 May 2024. Reasons: 1. ND files this claim seeking a full refund of $264.99 paid for a [garden kit]...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1349 APPLICANT RK RESPONDENT KS The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. RK purchased a jetski from KS via Facebook marketplace. She did not test run the jetski in the water prior to purchase but took it out on the water with her partner a few days after collection. Once the motor had warmed up, t...