12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 185 APPLICANT CV RESPONDENT IT The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. IT and FS contracted CV to erect a kitset [Supplier] cabin on their property in [Suburb]. 2. At that time CV’s details were listed on the “Find a builder or tradesperson” page on [Supplier]’s website. 3. CV ca...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1571 APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT BM The Tribunal orders: BM is to pay KT $350.00 by 5 August 2021. Reasons: 1. KT seeks repayment of a bond of $350.00 from BM. 2. Both parties attended the hearing. Background 3. On 12 August 2020 KT signed a flatmate agreement with BM. The agreement was to start on 24 August. Weekly...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 298 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT C Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT CD APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) GN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 20 May 2022, temporary metal scaffolding erected to cover a second story roof top sw...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 290 APPLICANT UW RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons Did X Ltd fail to provide UW with a licence he was entitled to receive? 1. UW has claimed that by withholding the PG 2 (paragliding) license he was entitled to receive, X Ltd breached his contractual rights...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 466 APPLICANT XL RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. XL hired a truck from D Ltd trading as IJ in December 2023, selecting the ‘Q’ insurance option. When he returned the truck after the hire, the IJ staff member pointed out damage high on the side panel of the truck near the roof, and advise...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1429 APPLICANT WQ Limited FIRST RESPONDENT X Limited SECOND RESPONDENT CG trading as UQ The Tribunal orders: CG and X Limited are jointly and severally liable to pay $828.00 to WQ Limited by 25 May 2021. Reason Was the vehicle of acceptable quality? 1. The claim made by WQ Limited (WQ)...
...returns had been received since 2003 and IRD were considering prosecution. No other person was engaged for accounting work by the trust. To obtain financial records, Mr Williams contacted advisory trustee Aoterangi Cotter, who both provided the information and signed Mr Williams’ engagement form. The applicant submits this form was signed on 27 April 2012. Mr Williams states he was also approached by the Māori Land Court regarding a review of the trust at a similar time. [9] F...
...the 19 March 2010 hearing on the day of the hearing; (b) Counsel for the advisory trustees' application was made without giving sufficient time or formal notice to the applicant, which did not grant him the opportunity to avoid the costs now claimed; (c) The applicant has unnecessarily incurred costs as a direct result of the advisory trustees actions and omissions as aforesaid; (d) The advisory trustees actions were unreasonable and disentitle them to be indemnified or reimb...
221 Aotea MB 152 IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Hearings: UNDER AND A20070001902 Section 269(6), Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 HOANI HIPANGO Applicant WHATARANGI MURPHY PEEHI, ABE HEPI, DANA BLACKBURN, DON ROBINSON, MANSON BELL, ROB ERT GREY, TONI WAHO Respondents 185 Aotea MB 195, 17 April 2007 194 Aotea MB 233, 16 October 2007 197 Aotea MB 1, 21 November 2007 199 Aotea MB 110, 30 January 2008 (Heard at Whanganui) Appearances: Ms C Batt,...
...Tribunal upheld a complaint in this matter. [2] The facts and background are set out in the earlier decision. The three elements of the complaint that were upheld were, in outline: [2.1] The Adviser accepted a professional engagement to pursue an application for a residence visa to come to New Zealand. An essential element of that engagement was to lodge an application for recognition of teaching qualifications to support the residence application. The Adviser failed to progress the wor...