13020 items matching your search terms
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...
...CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Waikato Bay of Plenty Standards Committee 2 BETWEEN ABP LTD of [North Island] Applicant AND MR VW of [North Island] Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] After considering a complaint made by ABP Ltd (the Applicant) against Mr...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 126 APPLICANT KA RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. KA is to pay L Ltd $115.00 by 13 February 2024. 2. The claim by KA is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In April 2023, L Ltd inspected a heat pump at KA’s rental property. L Ltd recommended that the heat pump be replaced. KA alleges that this advice was fraudulent and claims compensati...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 89 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT OM Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. EC has made an application to the Tribunal for an order that he is able to reject the MH 70” TV he purchased from OM Ltd in July 2014 and receive a full refund or a replacement TV. Can EC reject the goods unde...
...something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a rehearing, you can apply online, download a form from the Disputes Tribunal website or obtain an application form from any Tribunal office. The application must be lodged within 20 working days of the decision having been made. If you are applying outside of the 20 working day timeframe, you must also fill out an Application for Reheari...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2018] NZDT 1454 APPLICANT DS RESPONDENT NS The Tribunal hereby orders: NS is to pay DS $779.10 by 4pm on 14 May 2018. Reasons 1. On 14 January 2018, DS was walking her dogs along [Redacted] Road, in [Redacted] . Near the [Forest], DS noticed a dog that was not on a lead. The dog ran straight up to her dogs and attacked the...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 581 APPLICANT EN RESPONDENT HM t/a TT The Tribunal orders: HM is to pay EN $1,284.95 by the 18 December 2023. Reasons: 1. EN purchased a [rifle] from HM trading as TT on the 30 July 2023 for $1284.95. 2. EN claims that when he received the rifle it had a faulty safety mechanism which failed to lock the bolt and the picatinny rail...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 556 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT MA The Tribunal orders: MA is to pay ED $110.00 on or before 9 May 2023. Reasons 1. ED and his partner bought a kitten from MA through the [online] website, paying a total of $1,240.00. After possessing the kitten for a couple of days, ED discovered a minor rash on the kitten’s muzzle, which over th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 231 APPLICANT QA RESPONDENT FI and II The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. QA purchased a house at [address], from FI and II with a settlement date of 7 July 2023. It rained heavily that night and he found the garage flooded, even though a pump set up to mitigate flooding was running. Just two weeks later, o...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 252 APPLICANT UM RESPONDENT QO SECOND RESPONDENT DO The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. UM purchased a vehicle from DO via her son QO after seeing it advertised on U. 2. Prior to this, UM organised for it to be checked over by B and QO assisted with this taking place. 3. After the in...