12922 items matching your search terms
From 6 June 2015, all repossession agents must be licensed and all repossession employees must have a certificate of approval (COA). Repossession agents or employees who don’t have a licence or certificate and repossess consumer goods (or claim they have the right to do so) could be fined up to $40,000.
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 794 APPLICANT OD RESPONDENT JE The Tribunal orders: Claim: The claim is dismissed. Counterclaim: The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons The claim [1] OD purchased a car from JE. She discovered after the purchase that the car was defective, and she seeks a refund and other costs from him. JE counterclaims for costs he has incurred in...
LCRO 23/2014 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the National Standards Committee BETWEEN ZA Applicant AND YB Respondent DECISION – RECUSAL The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Recusal application [1] At the start of the review hearing in October 2015 Mr [ZA] requested an adjournment, and asked...
...submitted to the Tribunal until the day before the hearing. I would agree with the applicants that this kind of DNA test is not likely to be helpful in considering whether the puppy sold to TB and UB had the congenital condition referred to in the claim. 10) Further to the above, a puppy that experiences what this one did, about 10 days after a purchase, which is assessed as being likely to have the congenital condition in question, is not, I conclude, of acceptable quality for the purp...
...balance of probabilities; that is, which party’s account I find the more probable. Decision [11] I find that the Respondent is liable for repairs to the hydraulics and gear box water/oil issues, but not the other amounts claimed. My reasons are set out below. Liability in general [12] The Respondent claims that it should not be liable at all for any of the items claimed because the sale was on behalf and no warranties given. [13] My finding on this...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 8 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1539 APPLICANT X Limited (formerly Q Limited) RESPONDENT II SECOND RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: II and BI are liable to pay $7,536.78 to X Limited in respect of the claim. X Limited is liable to pay $4,492.88 to II and BI in respect of the counter claim. After the amount of $4,492.88 payable by X Limited...
...for L E Builders Limited Judgment: 18 October 2011 REASONS FOR JUDGMENT OF JUDGE B S TRAVIS [1] After hearing a full and excellent argument from both counsel, in support of and in opposition to the plaintiff’s application to join the former sole director of the defendant company Lawrence Leong Eng Loo as a party, I determined that the most appropriate course was to adjourn the application until the substantive challenge has been disposed of. The following are my reason...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2016] NZDT 1444 APPLICANT YT RESPONDENT ED Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: ED Limited is to pay the sum of $9,342.50 to YT on or before 1 September 2016. Reasons: 1. Mr T wished to build a minor dwelling at the back of his house. In April 2015, he contacted ED Limited (ED) and they started negotiations. On 2 July 2015, t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 250 APPLICANT BN and UN RESPONDENT ON The Tribunal orders: ON is to pay BN and UN the sum of $3565.00 by no later than 13 July 2023. Reasons: 1. BN and UN arranged for ON, director of B Ltd, to sign off and submit building plans to Council. BN and UN were invoiced the sum of $3565 by B Ltd on 25 August 2022.
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 379 APPLICANT JX RESPONDENT SB The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim by JX against SB is proved. 2. SB is to pay JX the sum of $455.00 on or before 5:00 pm on 23 June 2024. 3. If SB wants to pick up the fridge, he is to arrange a time that is suitable with JX and JX is to make the fridge available. 4. SB is not to pick up the fridge unti...