12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 668 APPLICANT MM RESPONDENT UN Limited The Tribunal orders: UN Limited is to pay the sum of $1,885.80 to MM on or before 12 August 2024. Reasons: 1. In early October 2023, MM (the owner) booked UN Limited (the carrier) to move her household contents from her address in [Suburb A] to her new upstairs apartment address in [Suburb...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 971 BETWEEN DN APPLICANT AND VM RESPONDENT Date of Order: 19 October 2016 Referee: Referee Brown ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] DN purchased a residential property from VM at an auction in December 2015. DN took possession on 5 February 2016. In May 2016 when the weather became cooler, DN tried to turn on the Bon-Air Vulcan...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1517 APPLICANT BN Ltd RESPONDENT DL The Tribunal orders: DL is to pay the sum of $345.00 to BN Ltd on or before 15 January 2021. Reasons: 1. On 27 July 2020, following a telephone call from DL, BN Ltd emailed DL an estimate for the cost of moving the contents of her three-bedroom home from [Town 1] to [Town 2]. The estim...
...person [30] The definition is directed to administrative tasks, such as keeping records, maintaining financial records and the like. [31] The definition deals specifically with the role an unlicensed person may have in the process of preparing applications for visas. They may record information “on any form, application, request, or claim on behalf and under the direction of another person”. [32] The natural meaning of those words is that the unlicensed person relying on the “...
HST v KAG [2020] NZEmpC 122 [10 August 2020] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2020] NZEmpC 122 EMPC 111/2020 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to extend time to file a challenge BETWEEN HST Applicant AND KAG Respondent Hearing: On the papers Appearances: A Riches, counsel for applicant J Lovely, counsel for respondent Judgment:...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 608 APPLICANT LH APPLICANT TH RESPONDENT D Inc The Tribunal orders: D Inc are to pay LH and TH $500.00 on or before 28 November 2023. Reasons 1. LH and TH hired the [venue] at [address], for their wedding on Saturday 14 January 2023. They entered into a hire agreement (the contract) with the D Inc, who lease [the v
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 125 APPLICANT KI RESPONDENT CT The Tribunal orders: CT is ordered to pay KI the sum of $4,473.50. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 30 June 2023. Reasons: 1) In January this year the applicant bought a caravan from the respondent. This was via ‘[online selling platform].’ The price paid was $26,902.00. 2) The...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 36 APPLICANT EH RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. D Ltd is to pay the sum of $899.00 to EH on or before Monday 24 January 2022. 2. Once payment has been made, D Ltd may collect the furniture from EH at a mutually convenient time. If the goods have not been collected by 10 February 2022, EH may keep or dispose of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 223 APPLICANT HC RESPONDENT HT The Tribunal orders: HT is to pay HC the total sum of $8,600.00 on or before Thursday 11 April 2024. Reasons: 1. HC and HT have been friends for 10 years. On 5 November 2022, HC gave HT $10,000.00 to help HT buy a house. 2. HC claims $8,600.00 that he says is unpaid. 3. The issue t...
...breach of Information Privacy Principle (IPP) 6 of the Privacy Act 2020 (PA) and an interference with his privacy. [3] One NZ denies that claim and say it had a proper basis under ss 47 and 53(c) of the PA to neither confirm nor deny whether it holds the requested information. [4] The claim was filed in October 2022, it has not, however, been able to be progressed because Dr Bevan-Smith has repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions requiring him to file his written statement of evi...