12870 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1645 APPLICANTS UC and FL RESPONDENT GM The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. UC and FL own [Address 1]. GM owns [Address 2]. 2. On or about 12 February 2019 the parties entered into an agreement (the agreement) whereby in exchange for UC and FL giving their written approval as affect...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1659 APPLICANT MQ RESPONDENT HQ The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim for $986.00 + GST for replacement of fence palings is dismissed. 2. HQ is ordered to remove the doors (and any other similar material) currently attached to the boundary fence between the parties, on or before 31 August 2021. 3. If HQ fail...
ADVANCE INTERNATIONAL CLEANING SYSTEMS (NZ) LIMITED v STEVEN HAMILTON NZEmpC CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 34 [7 April 2016] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2016] NZEmpC 34 EMPC 36/2016 IN THE MATTER OF an application for leave to file a challenge out of time BETWEEN ADVANCE INTERNATIONAL CLEANING SYSTEMS (NZ) LIMITED Applicant AND STEVEN HAMILTON Respondent Hearing: (on the papers filed on 11 and 25 February, 3 and 10 Mar...
...NZLCRO 106 Ref: LCRO 109/2023 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 W JM and F JM Applicants AND EB and MK Respondents DECISION The names and identifying factors in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr and Mrs JM (the applicants) have applied for a review of a decision by the [Area] Stan...
...NZEmpC 148 at [117]. 2 JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. v Lewis (also cited as JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v Lewis) [2015] NZCA 255. 3 Lewis v JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. [2013] NZERA Auckland 18. [3] The defendant’s submissions in support of its claims for costs against the plaintiff Robert Lewis are lengthy and comprehensive. [4] First, the defendant JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (the Bank or JPMorgan) says that in view of its success in the Court of Appeal, Mr Lewis should pay it...
...management company but Q Ltd repeatedly failed/refused to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TY was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing d...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 7 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 69 APPLICANT And Respondent for Counterclaim AM APPLICANT And Respondent for Counterclaim HM RESPONDENT And Applicant for Counterclaim TH RESPONDENT NH And Applicant for Counterclaim The Tribunal orders: AM and HM are to pay $30,000.00 to TH and NH on or before Monday 11 April 2022. Reasons:
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 131 APPLICANT ET RESPONDENT SK The Tribunal orders: SK is to pay ET $9,396 by 6 April 2023. Reasons 1. In September 2021, ET bought a campervan that had been advertised on Trade Me from SK for $17,500. SK lives in the [redacted] and so ET also paid another $396 to have him transport it to [Town] where she picked it up. ET p...
...obtain a visitor visa in the cultural marriage category to enter New Zealand to live with the complainant. [2] However, the written client agreement with Ms Parekh’s company was not signed by her and did not name her. Furthermore, the two visa applications lodged by Ms Parekh both wrongly stated that the couple had lived together. Nor did the couple otherwise meet Immigration New Zealand’s criteria for culturally arranged marriages. The applications were therefore unsuccess...
...determine costs, my present view is that there were no delays attributable to the parties or their counsel, or other factors which may have increased costs unnecessarily to this point. Further, although the case has been concluded on interlocutory applications, my view is that it would not be appropriate simply to deal with costs affecting interlocutory applications generally. The cross-applications for striking out the substantive proceedings had necessarily to be argued intensi...