12550 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 345 APPLICANT LF RESPONDENT JN SECOND RESPONDENT Christchurch Insolvency and Trustee Service THIRD OR RESPONDENT BH FOURTH RESPONDENT C Ltd FIFTH RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. JN agreed to store an artwork...
...[2024] NZLCRO 039 Ref: LCRO 149/2023 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a decision of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN HV Applicant AND BQ Respondent DECISION ON PENALTY [1] This decision follows my primary decision dated 2 April 2024 in which I found that the applicant had breached rr 3.4(a) and 13.4 of the Rules and thereby engaged in unsatisfac...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 645 APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. G Ltd is to pay $2,139.00 to SN on or before 4pm 13 November 2023. Reasons: 2. In April 2022 SN engaged G Ltd to supply plumbing services in her house for which she was invoiced for $3,017.63. SN said the shower tray was not levelled when it was installed and as a resu...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 708 APPLICANT IP APPLICANT OS RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: L Ltd is to pay the sum of $7466.38 to IP and OS by no later than 19 January 2024. Reasons: 1. In May 2021, IP and OS purchased a section from L Ltd. A Geotech report was arranged by L Ltd in June 2021 which revealed topsoil to a depth of 300mm in the borehole, wit...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 401 APPLICANT XX RESPONDENT SU The Tribunal orders: SU is to pay $1,142.00 to XX on or before 17 June 2024. Reasons: 1. XX (the consumer) and his family recently moved into a house in [suburb] that is close to a flight path. He looked for someone who could retrofit existing windows, and contacted SU (the supplier) via his website,...
...27 October 2009 the Privacy Commissioner informed AMEX that he had decided to take no further action and to discontinue the investigation of the complaint. [2.9] The present proceedings were filed on 24 September 2013. The amended statement of claim [3] By amended statement of claim dated 1 August 2014 Mr Hood alleges information privacy principles 2, 6 and 7 were breached by AMEX in three separate respects: [3.1] Collecting information about him from Veda Advantage (NZ) Ltd without...
...10 November 2023. 2. If $10,795.02 is not paid by 10 November 2023 then interest of $508.55 will be added for enforcement purposes. Reasons Is MT able to contest the cost of work in invoice #0939 for $7,583.10? 1. In July 2021 MT requested CI, trading as [(J Design)] to provide services regarding the renovation of her house. CI and MT had known each other for a long period of time. MT not request a fixed price for the work she was asking J Design to complete. The w...
...and the completion of detailed written submissions to be included in the Joint Expert Report. 8. Between April 2019 and June 2019, VT 2 Limited issued invoices for the work completed by VT Limited. 9. The amount due has not been paid and the applicants claim the sum of $9,550.75 being $8,682.25 (inclusive of GST) for the work plus $755.00 interest. 10. BN disputes the claim on the basis that he did not have a contract with VT 2 Limited. He also disputes the amount claimed for t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 566 APPLICANT MQ RESPONDENT CS The Tribunal orders: CS is to pay MQ $4,417.00 by 28 September 2024. Background 1. The adjournment order dated 22 May 2024 sets out the background to the claim. 2. The second hearing took place by phone on 16 July 2024. CS and MQ participated in the hearing. 3. I heard evidence from KC. KC cla...
...that when the instructions changed Mr Conquer failed to set out new terms in writing, including the new arrangements for fees. When responding to the complaint Mr Conquer provided information that suggested he had lodged a misleading and dishonest application with Immigration New Zealand. It appeared that he had knowingly used a bigamous marriage of convenience as the basis for his client’s visa application, and told Immigration New Zealand the marriage was genuine. [3] The informatio...