Search Results

1. IP & OS v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 708 (18 December 2023) [pdf, 234 KB]

   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...

2. XX v SU [2024] NZDT 401 (31 May 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   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,...

3. QN v UD & ND [2024] NZDT 640 (26 August 2024) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...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 Rehea...

4. Newbury & Ors [2011] NZWHT Auckland 3 [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...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 assessor’s report...

5. [2024] NZEmpC 174 A Ifraz Investments Ltd v Jamal [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...had acted for the defendant, Mohazam Jamal, when the proceedings were before the Authority. However, the representative did not have authority to accept service in these proceedings and on 21 August 2023, the Court directed that the statement of claim be served personally on the defendant. 1 Jamal v A Ifraz Investments Ltd [2023] NZERA 317 (Member Arthur). [3] The Court registry has followed up with the plaintiff multiple times to ascertain whether the statement of cla...

6. McQuade v Young & Ors as Trustees for the Maureen Young Family Trust [pdf, 136 KB]

   ...process and timetabling. 1.7 Between the time of the preliminary teleconference and the hearing further teleconferences were held and I was required to issue twenty-two Procedural Orders to give directions under s 36 of the WHRS Act and to rule on applications and requests by the parties and to assist in preparations for the hearing 1.8 During the course of the process respondents joined to the adjudication pursuant to s33 of the WHRS Act were Bulleyment-Fortune Architects L...

7. L v Conquer [2015] NZIACDT 49 (12 May 2015) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...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...

8. FQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 248 (24 November 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 248 APPLICANT FQ RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay FQ $10,000.00 on or before 22 December 2022. Reasons 1. FQ purchased a [caravan] from T Ltd on 12 May 2022 for the cost of $143,000.00 for her and her husband and 2 children aged 7 months and 2 years to live in. She arranged and paid for...

9. Osborne v Dixon [2012] NZWHT Auckland 5 [pdf, 84 KB]

   ...NOEL BARNES Third Respondent AND MASTER BUILD SERVICES LIMITED (Removed) Fourth Respondent AND PLASTER SYSTEMS LIMITED Fifth Respondent Decision: 16 February 2012 COST DETERMINATION Adjudicator: K D Kilgour COSTS APPLICATION BY AUCKLAND COUNCIL [1] The Council was removed from this proceeding on 10 September 2010 in Procedural Order No 7. [2] The claimants appealed that determination and also judicially reviewed the Eligibility Decisions of the...

10. U Ltd v NG [2024] NZDT 492 (1 July 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 492 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT NG The Tribunal orders: NG is to pay $217.00 to U Ltd before 1 August 2024. Reasons 1. On 7 March 2024 NG obtained an online estimate of $310.00 from U Ltd for it to provide him with house cleaning services on 25 March 2024. 2. On 8 March 2024 U Ltd emailed NG to say ‘thank you for booking your...