Search Results

Search results for claim form.

12550 items matching your search terms

  1. B v ACC [2012] NZACA 5 [pdf, 127 KB]

    ...APPEARANCES/COUNSEL Phillip Schmidt for appellant Dane Tui for respondent DECISIONS [1] The first issue in this appeal is the appellant’s application to reinstate Appeal No. ACA 281/88, which was withdrawn on 7 November 1988 at the Corporation’s request. There is an alternative application before the Authority, under Appeal No. ACA 16/08, being the appellant’s application for leave to appeal out of time, following the Corporation’s objection to the reinstatement of the 1...

  2. ET & JT v AQ [2024] NZDT 295 (13 May 2024) [pdf, 128 KB]

    ...damage to [car 1]. [car 1] was a high performance car and therefore expensive to repair. 13. The repairers’ costs was $19,812.96 (including the excess). J Ltd have also added a tow charge and storage totalling $250 plus GST. The total amount claimed is therefore $20,100. 46. 14. AQ/MQ had no issues in relation to the costs. Conclusion 15. For the reasons above AQ must pay J Ltd, $20,100.46. Referee: Ms Gayatri Jaduram Date: 13 May 2024 Page 3 of 3...

  3. EO v UO & U Ltd [2023] NZDT 257 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

    ...including structural rust. NZ Transport Agency investigated EO’s complaint against U Ltd for issuing the WOF despite the van’s extensive issues and upheld her complaint. Action was taken against U Ltd for issuing the WOF. 3. In a separate Tribunal claim by Ms L, EO and Mr O were ordered to pay $17,066.00 to Ms L by the Tribunal in a decision dated 7 March 2022, as damages for misrepresentation in relation to the WOF for the van. 4. EO claimed that the WOF should not have been is...

  4. LE v BI [2024] NZDT 31 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 139 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 31 APPLICANT LE RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: 1. BI is to pay the sum of $180.00 to LE on or before Friday, 1 March 2024. 2. Once BI has made the payment set out in order 1 above, LE is to make the [Brand] baby carrier that she purchased from BI reasonably available for collection by BI. BI (or his nominated agent) is to collect th...

  5. Where to file documents

    You can file your application in the District Court: closest to the defendant’s home or place of business, if that is in New Zealand if the defendant does not live or carry on business in New Zealand (you can choose which District Court) closest to where the actions that led to the claim happened closest to where the property which the claim is about is located. To make sure you file your documents in the correct place, refer to rule 5.1 of the District Court Rules All subsequent application...

    Located in:
    1. Courts >
    2. Going to court >
    3. Going to court without a lawyer >
    4. Representing yourself in a civil case in the District Court

  6. Clarke v Runanga o Onuku - Te Whanau a Hinemataiao Puhirere Incorporation (2001) 92 South Island MB 225 (92 SI 225) [pdf, 142 KB]

    Minute Book: 92 SI 225 Place: Wellington Present: J.V. Williams, Chief Judge Marie Parker, Clerk of the Court 28 February 2001 Date: Application No: A20000050990 Subject: Section: Chief Judge Te Whanau a Hinemataiao Puhirere Incorporation 30/93 On 22 January I received a letter from counsel for the Runanga 0 Onuku asking what the status of this matter was. Up until receipt of that letter I had thought that the matter had been disposed of. It transpires that a draft decis...

  7. BN & UG v EI [2023] NZDT 234 (22 May 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...BN saw EI’s advertisement on Facebook for a mare she was selling called X. BN purchased X from EI for $250.00 including transport, as a project to train up and sell. On 27 April 2022, BN sold X to UG (BN and UG are referred to together as “the Applicants”). 2. Some months later, UG discovered that X was in foal by which time the pregnancy was quite advanced. The pregnancy did not go well, and X needed specialist care and there was no suitable care on the [City 1]. UG sent X for sp...

  8. OQ v N Ltd [2023] NZDT 660 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 660 APPLICANT OQ RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is to pay OQ $8,278.85 by 8 December 2023. Reasons: 1. In June 2022, N Ltd replaced the engine in OQ’s car at a cost of $8,278.85. The engine failed in late October 2022, and OQ claims reimbursement of the replacement cost. 2. Both parties attended the hearings. Mr and Mr...

  9. [2017] NZEmpC 96 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs NZ Ltd Interlocutory judgment (No 23) [pdf, 246 KB]

    ...NZEmpC AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 96 [4 August 2017] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT AUCKLAND [2017] NZEmpC 96 ARC 22/14 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER an application for further and better discovery AND IN THE MATTER of an application for strike-out BETWEEN SHABEENA SHAREEN NISHA Plaintiff AND LSG SKY CHEFS NEW ZEALAND LIMITED First Defendant AND PRI...