12922 items matching your search terms
...ZEALAND WELLINGTON I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA [2023] NZEmpC 209 EMPC 251/2022 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application to strike out part of the pleadings BETWEEN DAVID OSBORNE Plaintiff AND CALLAGHAN INNOVATION Defendant Hearing: 25 October 2023 (Heard at Auckland via Audio Visual Link) Appearances: P...
...2013] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2013] NZEmpC 213 CRC 23/12 IN THE MATTER OF an application for permanent non- publication orders AND IN THE MATTER of an application for costs BETWEEN DR X Applicant AND A DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD Respondent Hearing: On the papers filed by the applicant on 1 October 2013 and by the respondent on 10 October 2013 Appearances: Hanne Janes, counsel for the applicant Paul...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1310 APPLICANT Ms E RESPONDENT Mr T The Tribunal orders: Mr T is to pay to Ms E the sum of $14,047.80 on or before 28 February 2021. Reasons 1. On 6 October 2016, Ms E purchased a new build at [redacted], from Mr T of LM Limited (“the Company”). 2. As soon as Ms E moved in, she realised that the central heatin...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1714 APPLICANT FD RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: A. B Ltd is to pay FFD $3,500.00 on or before 24 January 2022. B. The counterclaim brought by B Ltd is dismissed and a Declaration is made that FFD is not liable to pay the amount of $5,250.00 to B Ltd. Reasons 1. In about March or April 2021, FFD asked...
LCRO 138/2015 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of [City] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN AZ, BY and CX Applicants AND DW and EV Respondents The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION Introduction [1] Mr GT lodged a complaint on behalf of his clients (the respondents) against HS & I...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 259 APPLICANT BP RESPONDENT TD The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counterclaim was withdrawn at the conclusion of the hearing. For clarity the counterclaim is also dismissed. Reasons: 1. BP agreed to buy TD’s boat for $135,000.00. BP paid a deposit of $13,500.00 and took possession of the...
...may vacate the hearing. If settlement is reached prior to the hearing, please notify the Court immediately. 1. SCHEDULING AND HEARING FEES The scheduling fee is incurred when the proceeding is scheduled for a substantive hearing or any other application or proceeding (apart from an interlocutory application). The scheduling fee is not refundable if the hearing is no longer required. The party bringing the proceeding is liable to pay hearing fees. • For interlocutory applicati...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 82 APPLICANT BJ FIRST RESPONDENT T Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd THIRD RESPONDENT BD The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out against BD; and The claim is dismissed against T Ltd and K Ltd. Reasons 1. BD was struck out from these proceedings at the outset of the hearing as the Disputes Tribun...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 189 APPLICANT MU RESPONDENT GB The Tribunal orders: GB is to pay MU $10,900.00 on or before 11 April 2024. Reasons 1. On 1 November 2023, MU won an [online] auction to purchase a [vehicle], registration [redacted] for $19,100.00. The auction had been on the basis of a $1.00 reserve. He says he tried for several days to contact th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 546 APPLICANT ZX RESPONDENT UE The Tribunal orders: The claim by ZX against UE is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 14 November 2023, ZX entered into a contract to purchase a [vehicle] (the car) for $18,000.00 from UE. The car had been advertised on [website]. 2. ZX drove the car from [City 1] back to [City 2] and proceeded to drive it on sh...