13022 items matching your search terms
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,...
...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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 130 APPLICANT BN RESPONDENT NI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In February and March 2022, BN purchased and moved into a new house purchased from NI. At the time he was looking at the property BN noticed that the air conditioning unit was leaking water. He raised this, through the agen...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1554 APPLICANT SX Ltd RESPONDENT RO Ltd The Tribunal orders: RO Ltd is to pay SX Ltd the sum of $30,000.00 on or before 5pm on 3 September 2021. Reasons 1. SX Ltd and RO Ltd signed a contract for the reroofing and guttering of property at [the property] at a cost of $674,500.00 plus GST. 2. The quot...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 132 APPLICANT ON RESPONDENT MB Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The parties agree that ON was the successful bidder for four lots of American coins. Each lot contained 16 coins and in total ON paid $366.00 for all four lots containing a total of 64 coins. The coins were sold by an on-line...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 414 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: U Ltd is to pay $22,257.95 to TD by 5 September 2023. Reason 1. In September 2019, TD purchased a new motorhome from U Ltd for $149,000.00. It is a [campervan brand], motorhome, registration [number]. Due to Covid restriction there was limited use of the ve...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 545 APPLICANT ED RESPONDENT NG The Tribunal orders: NG is to pay $11,000.00 to ED by the 23rd July 2024. Reasons 1. In the absence of NG and on the evidence before me I find ED purchased on the 27th January 2024 a second hand [vehicle] with some 154000km on the odometer from NG for $14,500, having seen the Ute advertised on Trademe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 609 APPLICANT IW RESPONDENT K Ltd (trading as CU) The Tribunal orders: K Ltd is to pay IW $1,095.00 by 22 August 2024. Reasons: 1. IW claims a refund of $1,095.00 on a [phone], which he says is not of acceptable quality. 2. IW attended the teleconference hearing. CU did not attend. On 5 August, the CU NZ support team provided a [ov...
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 656 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT T Limited The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. BT is to be allowed reasonable access to collect the materials that belong to him that he returned to T Limited for him to collect during usual business hours for a period of 28 consecutive days from the date of this decision. If BT does not collect his goods w...
...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...