12730 items matching your search terms
Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 289 APPLICANT UE and QO RESPONDENT CO Ltd The Tribunal orders: The dispute is adjourned to a date to be fixed before Referee Hayes with ½ a day allocated for an in person hearing. Reasons: 1. The adjournment was required as there was insufficient time to conclude today’s hearing and the parties needed the opportunity to file fur...
...respondents claimed to have sent an email notifying the applicants that they had removed their livestock from the Heads block. Further, it was their belief that an injunction hearing was unnecessary because they had already removed their sheep before the request for an injunction. [11] Regarding the application for costs, the respondents asked the Court to take into consideration that the applicants had only been partially successful in their application. Discussion Should costs b...
...eventual redundancy. She also believes staff spread malicious rumours about her and that both within and outside the workplace she was the victim of sexual harassment. These grievances did not, however, motivate Ms Sansom to bring a personal grievance claim under the Employment Relations Act 2000. [7] But she has made a number of requests under the Privacy Act 1993 for access to personal information held by the Department. [8] In these proceedings Ms Sansom complains that in respondi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 466 APPLICANT FN APPLICANT NH RESPONDENT K Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: K Ltd is to pay FN and NH $5,421.00 by 15 September 2023. Background 1. NH and FN own a property on [Address]. They wanted to carry out a two-lot subdivision. 2. They contacted K Ltd, a surveying business i...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 952 BETWEEN DL LIMITED APPLICANT AND VO RESPONDENT Date of Order: 17 June 2016 Referee: Referee Jaduram ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that VO is to pay DL Limited $6,649.20 by Wednesday 6 July 2016. Facts [1] VO took out a loan from DL Limited of $8,598.00 so he could purchase a motor vehicle. The loan was secured against that motor vehicle. The loan and security...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 348 BETWEEN AFS FIRST APPLICANT AND AFT SECOND APPLICANT AND ZUD FIRST RESPONDENT AND ZUE SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 2 July 2013 Referee: Referee Robertshawe ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZUE is to pay to AFS and AFT the sum of $10,063.02 within 28 days. Facts [1] On 9 December 2006, AFS and AFT entered i...
...March 2021 declining to cover for a treatment injury. [2] The appellant submits that she ought to be entitled to cover for a treatment injury because she suffered an injury because of treatment. [3] The Corporation’s position is that the claim does not meet the statutory criteria for cover of a treatment injury. Background [4] On 8 March 2019, an ACC injury claim form was filed for a sensitive claim said to relate to an event on 8 March 2014. The claim form indicated that...
...be cited as: Lohr v Accident Compensation Corporation [2016] NZHRRT 31] 2 [2] In about July 2011 the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) commenced an investigation into Dr Lohr’s practice with a view to determining whether ACC payment claims submitted by him (and by entities associated with him) were bona fide. The more particular concerns, as outlined by Ms K Eland for ACC in her evidence, included: [2.1] Duplication of claims made. [2.2] Questions about accident cause fo...
...applications lodged by Auckland Council and s274 parties; also that the Brabants were on the Court record jointly as Counsel for WML; and that as liquidator Mr Whittfield needed to resolve the question of legal representation (if any) with respect to the claims for costs. [6] Messrs Brabant further recorded that Mr Whittfield had requested that the Court be advised that he had been appointed liquidator and that all further correspondence should be addressed to him (he indicated that he...
...RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for deemed cover - s 58, Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] Appeal 214/21 is an appeal from the decision of a Reviewer dated 17 August 2021. The Reviewer dismissed an application for review, declining Ms Watson deemed cover for a chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). Appeal 236/21 (concerning costs) was discontinued by Ms Watson on 21 December 2023. 2 Background [2] Ms Watson was born in 1981. S...