12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 253 APPLICANT DG RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay $1,482.41 to DG before 26 April 2024. Reasons 1. DG purchased a [laptop] on 30 August 2019. In October 2023 it ceased working and an Authorised [brand] Service Provider found that the logic board had failed. 2. Cody claims $1,482.41 from B Ltd being the cost to...
LCRO 56 /09 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Standards Committee BETWEEN COMPLAINANT R of Whangamata Applicant AND LAWYER D of Auckland Respondent DECISION Introduction [1] Lawyer D has, through his counsel, Mr XX, raised concerns about the LCRO’s procedures in relation to a decision issued on 19 June 2009. [2...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2011] NZDT 162 BETWEEN ADM LTD APPLICANT AND ADN SECOND APPLICANT AND ZWN RESPONDENT AND ZWM CITY COUNCIL SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 14 January 2011 Referee: Referee A Davidson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the Respondent, ZWN, must pay the Applicant, ADM Ltd, $1,125.00 (incl GST) within seven days of the date of this or...
...Marica, the adviser, acted for IMH, the complainant, who sought to renew a visitor visa. Due to a mistake in the immigration consultancy’s file records as to the expiry date of the complainant’s existing visa, Ms Marica was too late making the application as the existing visa had already expired. While the complainant was eventually told by her that he would need a discretionary visa, he was not informed of the error in the file record or that his immigration status had become u...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 9 APPLICANT ST RESPONDENT Council The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) On 15 December 2021 a tree on a front verge [land owned by the respondent] fell on to the applicant’s car, which was parked on the street. ST says that “upon falling, the roots...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 711 APPLICANT HT RESPONDENT BM The Tribunal orders: A. BM is pay HT $1,050.00 on or before 11 September 2024. B. BM is entitled to take the washing machine from HT’s property at a reasonably agreed time after the above payment is made to HT, and not before. If payment is not made by 11 September 2024, the ownership of the washing mac...
...gathered information and documents. Ms Murthy sent him a sample employment contract on 5 June. [12] On 25 June 2020, Immigration NZ sent an email to the consultancy (but addressed to the complainant) advising that his registration for an online application was complete. [13] The complainant alleges he made several phone calls to Ms Murthy to give her further details of his job description and previous employment. There was an email exchange about his immigration history. He...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 213 BETWEEN ACV APPLICANT AND ZXE Ltd RESPONDENT Date of Order: 26 August 2013 Referee: Referee Brown ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] ACV engaged ZXE Ltd to move his household belongings including his Ducati motorbike. When the truck was unpacked at his new home, the fairing, right hand mirror and both back blinkers w...
...determination was issued in a proceeding between the New Zealand Furniture Manufacturing & Associated Workers' Union Incorporated (the Union) as first applicant, Mr David Stevens, as second applicant, and Cudby & Meade, as respondent. The applicants in that proceeding had claimed that Cudby & Meade had failed to comply with the terms of a consent determination and that it had also failed to pay Mr Stevens, one of its former employees, holiday pay on the termination...
...Following initial disclosure by the parties Mr Waters made application for further and better discovery and for a direction under s 69 of the Evidence Act 2006 requiring disclosure of communications or information in respect of which Alpine Energy has claimed confidentiality. [4] A brief overview of the case as presently pleaded will aid an understanding of the issues to be determined. Background circumstances [5] As these proceedings are still at the pre-trial preparation stage no ev...