12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1488 APPLICANT CS APPLICANT DS RESPONDENT SG The Tribunal hereby orders: 1. SG is to pay CS and DS the sum of $690.00 on or before 23 April 2019. 2. SG is to collect the splashback from CS and DS at his own expense on or before 23 April 2019. 3. SG is to give CS and DS 48 hours notice of the collection. Reasons
...Section 42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act provides that where the case of any party is not presented to the Tribunal after a reasonable opportunity has been given to that party to do so, the matter may be resolved by the Tribunal on such evidence or information as is before it. 2. In July 2022, DE visited UC Ltd and was seen by KH, the director of UC Ltd. DE says he was informed at the consultation that he needed five dental implants and two extractions. A plan was made to carry ou...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 411 APPLICANT CW APPLICANT NK RESPONDENT TX The Tribunal orders: TX is to pay CW and NK $573.30 on or before Friday 28 July 2023. Reasons: 1. In July 2022, CW and NK completed settlement of their purchase of property at [Address] from TX. On taking possession of the property, CW and NK received a key and a r...
...Pa Road is a County Road the consent of the Local Authority is required. Otherwise the consent of Transit New Zealand is required. If the surveyor can obtain and file the necessary consent, the file can be referred to the Court for orders. The applicant advised that Maraenui Pa Road was a county road, that consents had not been obtained and that the application was not ready to proceed. At 74 OPO 214 on 3 November 2000 the Court dismissed the application in terms of Rule 38(3)/94...
...Council6 the Tribunal concluded that the bar for establishing that a claim was without substantial merit should not be set too high and that the Tribunal should have the ability to award costs against parties making allegations, or opposing removal applications, on the basis of allegations which a party ought reasonably to have known they could not establish. [5] The Act does not provide any guidance as to how the Tribunal should calculate any costs awarded when exercising its...
FILE NO: 0092 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN: DAVID JOHN WIDDOWSON & ANGELA PHYLLIS WIDDOWSON Claimant AND: PETER FRANCES BEKX First Respondent AND: DEBBIE ANNE BEKX Second Respondent AND: WAIPA DISTRICT COUNCIL Third Respondent AND IAN M STUART Fourth Respondent (REMOVED) AND STUDORP LTD Fifth Respondent DETERMINATION OF ADJUDICATORS
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 010 Ref: LCRO 109/2020 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [AREA] Standards Committee BETWEEN SV Applicant AND FT Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr SV has app...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 504 APPLICANT TU RESPONDENT I Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT NT The Tribunal orders: 1. NT was joined as a respondent to these proceedings with the consent of all parties. 2. I Ltd is to pay $500.00 to TU on or before 12 July 2024. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 3. On or about 23 April 2024, TU purchased a 6 month old [brand] coffee...
...appropriate to order a nominal amount in compensation of $200 due to the failure of the product to be fit for the purpose. 13. It is noted S Ltd waived the account for the mix due to the difficulties incurred. This is a further benefit to the applicants. 14. The claim also includes the cost of obtaining a report from [laboratory] of $541.77. I find this to be a loss directly resulting from the failure of the product to be fit for the purpose. I accordingly find S Ltd liable to p...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 47 APPLICANT OE RESPONDENT UC The Tribunal orders: UC is to pay $1,640.00 to OE before 8 March 2023. Reasons 1. OE and UC had an agreement that if he paid her $1,700.00 she would return a motorbike which he had previously sold to her. OE claims that UC has breached this agreement as she hasn’t returned th...