13066 items matching your search terms
(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 525 APPLICANT ND RESPONDENT F Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ND enrolled her son, E, at F Ltd for extra English tuition to get him prepared for NCEA Level 1. E attended 90 minute classes every Tuesday. ND however believes the programme was inadequate and that it did not prepare her son for the exams. Although F Ltd provided positive
...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 215 APPLICANT DX APPLICANT QX RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] The applicants, QX and DX, claim from T Ltd, represented by DT, compensation for what they consider a misleading building report prepared by DT. DT denies liability. [2] The essential facts were not in dispute. In May 2020, the applicants purchased...
Claim No: 2891 Under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 In the matter of an adjudication claim Between David Lindsay Cameron and Brenda Muriel Cameron Claimants And Hastings District Council First respondent And David Lawrence Stevenson Second respondent And Chris Chote Third respondent And BMW Plumbing Limited Fourth respondent And Garry Brown Fifth respondent Determination 20...
...immigration and recruitment services. [45] The usual practice was to have Skype interviews so BIL could promote the client to New Zealand employers. Greenfields would gather information so that BIL could process the clients’ immigration and employment applications. [46] When the visa to work in New Zealand was approved, there were Philippines’ regulatory requirements. Greenfields was obliged to ensure that the engagement was genuine and the employee had the protection of insurance...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 587 APPLICANT IE RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. IE has claimed that X Ltd failed to provide satisfactory advice to him about an Enduring Power of Attorney for his father (NE). In 2019, IE was ordered by the Family Court to refund approximately $137,000.00 of his father’s money to his father�...
...dated 21 December 2018 (first memorandum), the memorandum of counsel for the applicants in reply dated 29 January 2019 and the memorandum for the respondents' in response dated 7 February 2019 (respondent's response memorandum). Amount of claim [6] The respondents have incurred total solicitor/client and witness costs and disbursements in respect of the proceedings of $65,385.38. Of that, $63,156.59 (including G8T) are solicitor/client costs and disbursements and $2,228.76...
...had ended. Ms Linley would have known that Mrs Clough already knew about the offer for the property, having been party to the agency agreement when the offer was made. Ms Linley would therefore have known that the letter was not needed to inform Mrs Clough of the offer, as she already knew about it. The purpose of the letter requested by Mrs Clough could only have been to disclose information about the offer to a third party. [57] The letter provided to Mrs Clough was not addre...
LCRO 119/2010 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 3 BETWEEN CH of Auckland Applicant AND XO of Auckland Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Background [1] In May 2008 the Applicant and his wife approached the Respondent for advice...
IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2017-100-006 BETWEEN JULIE MARTIN, BELINDA MARTIN and NOEL CAVE as Trustees of the JULIE M. MARTIN TRUST and BELINDA K. MARTIN TRUST Claimants AND DAVID THOMAS HERMANN First Respondent AND GRAEME JOHN EVANS Second Respondent AND HERMANN ENTERPRISES LTD Third Respondent AND BRUCE POVEY Fourth Respondent PROCEDURAL ORDER 9 First and Third Respondents’ Application for Removal Dated 5 November 2018...
...instructions to lodge an expression of interest, and did so in a form that could not lead to a successful outcome. It claimed points that were not available for the relevant position of employment. The allegations are that she: [2.1] Lodged the defective application because she did not prepare it with due care, and professionalism. [2.2] She failed to provide advice to her client in the form required when lodging a process that had no hope of success. [3] Ms Khetarpal responded to th...