12922 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 74 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by KQ against M Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. KQ purchased a 2018 Range Rover Sport car from M Ltd in January 2022 for $129,800.00. 2. Several months following the purchase KQ noticed that the car’s service light was on, indicating the car...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 574 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim in negligence is dismissed; and The Tribunal approves the following settlement: The parties agree that U Ltd will pay $15,000.00 to BT on or before 27 August 2024. Reasons 1. On [date] BT delivered his [car] to U Ltd to have new tyres fitted. The tyres re...
...The following seven considerations may apply, to a greater or lesser extent, in a particular case. 2 AC41/06, 31 July 2006. 3 (1999) 13 PRNZ 48. • If no stay is granted, whether the applicant’s right of appeal will be ineffectual; • whether the appeal is brought and prosecuted for good reasons, in good faith; • whether the successful party at first instance will be affected injuriously by a stay; • the effe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 349 APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT UQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: A. The claim for a refund of invoice 4368 issued by UQ Ltd is dismissed. B. There is a Declaration under section 10(1)(b) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 that SN is not required to pay invoices 4369 and 4448 issued by UQ Ltd. Reasons 1. In about July 2023, SN sought adv...
...time the Jeep was covered by the balance of a 3 year manufacturer’s warranty which expired in July 2012. [2] UQ Ltd is the local authorised service repair centre for Jeep. Between 2010 and 2012, at EJ’s request, UQ Ltd carried out 27 warranty claims to the value of $30,000 without cost to him. [3] In November 2014 EJ filed a claim for $10,887.51 from UQ LTd. EJ is unhappy with two of the repairs undertaken in 2012 by UQ Ltd (to the front differential housing and the electrical...
1 [2013] NZWHT AUCKLAND 19 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 7160: CAROLYN JANE NEWEL AND COLIN JOHN HENRY NEWEL – 1382 Old North Road, Helensville ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Mr and Mrs Newel are the owners of a property at 1382 Old North Road, Helensville. O...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2015] NZDT 1499 APPLICANT GQ RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: GQ is to pay the sum of $690.00 to M Ltd on or before 14 May 2015 but is not liable to pay M Ltd’s claim for further money for the twelve months to 9 July 2015. Reasons: 1. M Ltd (M Ltd) salesperson DN found GQ’s small business on TradeMe,...
...to have their first vaccination by 26 August 2021, the date specified for certain workers under the COVID-19 Public Health Response (Vaccinations) Order 2021 (the Order). An injunction is sought prohibiting such action. [2] A statement of claim, and associated applications for interim orders and for urgency, were filed by the applicant on the afternoon of 16 August 2021. The respondent is named as the Attorney-General (apparently on behalf of all employers). A teleph...
...Section 49 of the Act provides that a claimant may apply to the Chair seeking a review of a decision that their claim does not comply with the eligibility criteria within 20 working days of receiving notice of the decision. On receiving such an application I must decide whether or not the claim meets the eligibility criteria. [4] I have considered the following documents in conducting my review: The application for review and attached information. The submission dated 3...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 191 APPLICANT TH RESPONDENT KX The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TH and KX were in a de facto relationship for less than one year. KX lived in TH’s house without paying any rent. TH claimed for rent for the 48 weeks of their relationship. KX...