Search Results

1. Engelbrecht TRI-2020-100-007 Procedural Order 5 [pdf, 200 KB]

   IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI-2020-100-007 BETWEEN BERT KURT ENGELBRECHT, JORG ENGELBRECHT and DAVID ALAN SHACKLETON, as trustees of the BERT ENGELBRECHT FAMILY TRUST Claimants AND CHRISTCHURCH CITY COUNCIL First Respondent AND JOHN CREIGHTON BUILDER LTD Second Respondent AND JOHN ROBERT CREIGHTON Third Respondent AND PAUL MAURICE FOLEY Fourth Respondent AND FOLEY GROUP ARCHITECTURE LTD Fifth Respondent AND POWELL FENWICK CONSULTANT

2. TM v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 142 (11 April 2024) [pdf, 104 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 142 APPLICANT TM RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by TM against B Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. TM purchased a unit in [suburb] in 2016. At that time, TM also entered into an agreement with B Ltd for house insurance. Following inquiries by B Ltd, during 2023, B Ltd cancelled the insurance because TM’s unit is a “stacked...

3. BZ v OJ [2023] NZDT 221 (24 April 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 221 APPLICANT BZ RESPONDENT OJ The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, I record that the van remains the property of BZ, and she may deal with it as she sees fit. Reasons: 1. BZ purchased a [van] for $2,400.00 from OJ. 2. She inspected the vehicle before purchasing it. She dec...

4. TH & UH v DM & MT [2022] NZDT 262 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...and UH. I say this for reasons which include: a. I do not accept that it was established that Lolo had behavioural issues which prevented any other reasonable alternatives, including exploring some payment. Instead, on balance, I preferred the Applicants evidence that Lolo had not demonstrated behavioural issues, as this is more consistent with DM’s initial explanation to them, and their supporting evidence that Lolo had passed puppy school and no such issues had been reported by th...

5. IN & TN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 446 (23 April 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 446 APPLICANT IN and TN RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: D Ltd is to pay $16,000.00 to TN and IN on or before 17 May 2024. Reasons 1. In August 2021 TN and IN expressed interest in the [development] in [suburb], which was developed and sold by D Ltd. They met with the land agent for D Ltd and expressed that they were loo

6. N Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 341 (25 May 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 341 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: T Ltd is to pay N Ltd the sum of $100.00 on or before 20 May 2024. Reasons: 1. On 14 November 2023 N Ltd lent a company car to an employee, allowing them to drive it for personal use, outside of their working hours. The driver parked the car in a carpark managed by T Lt...

7. N Ltd v DS [2024] NZDT 416 (21 May 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 416 APPLICANT N Ltd RESPONDENT DS as Trustee of Q Trust The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is not liable to pay the Q Trust $11,007.14 in respect of invoice 156480 dated 1 April 2023. Reasons: 1. N Ltd leases premises at [Address] from Q Trust under a deed of lease dated 1 April 2022. N Ltd has received an invoice for $11,007.14 from Q Trus...

8. CD Ltd v BM [2024] NZDT 396 (10 June 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 396 APPLICANT CD Ltd RESPONDENT BM The Tribunal orders: BM is to pay CD Ltd the sum of $1726.25 by no later than 28 June 2024. Reasons: 1. BM asked BC, director of CD Ltd, to provide quotes for various home renovation projects. BC provided written estimates for the work required. BM accepted the price provided for replacing t...

9. AD v ZW and ZWZ [2014] NZDT 592 (27 May 2014) [pdf, 34 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2014] NZDT 592 BETWEEN AD APPLICANT AND ZW FIRST RESPONDENT AND ZWZ SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 27 May 2014 Referee: Referee Ashcroft ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] This is an unhappy dispute between family members. [2] The applicant (AD) and first respondent (ZW) are two of four surviving adult children of AA and BB. Th...

10. IC v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 747 (16 October 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 747 APPLICANT IC RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. IC engaged X Ltd to move household goods for his family from [City 1] to [City 2]. IC claims the costs of repair or replacement for items he says were damaged by X Ltd, seeking $8,774.00 in compensation. 2. X Ltd says this work was arranged...