12555 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 617 APPLICANT KD RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Reasons: Introduction: 1. In May of 2018 KD bought a computer hard drive from Q Ltd. 2. The hard drive had a five-year warranty and the hard drive failed three months after the warranty expired. 3. KD claims that the hard drive should no...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 430 APPLICANT E Ltd RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: I Ltd is to pay E Ltd the sum of $12,831.33 on or before 21 September 2023. Reasons: 1. In January 2022 I Ltd entered into a contract with E Ltd for debt collection services. Under that contract E Ltd will provide its services to collect any debts that I Ltd...
...establish that the two sessions of treatment that were necessary and provided cost LG a total of $597.80. Thus, BS and KS must pay LG that sum. Referee: C Hawes Date: 15 August 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that 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 re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 621 APPLICANT XU RESPONDENT I Ltd The Tribunal orders: I Ltd is to pay XU $400.00 on or before 23 November 2023. Reasons 1. On 29 April 2023, MO, Manager of XU, parked his car at the back of the [building] to unload music equipment for a [Region] Youth competition being held that day. He took a load out of his car and locked i...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 96 APPLICANT XT Ltd RESPONDENT OA Ltd The Tribunal orders: OA Ltd is to pay the sum of $575.50 to XT Ltd on or before Tuesday 30 August 2022. Reasons: 1. In May 2021, the Head of Drama at [School A] ordered eleven copies of a book of plays entitled [Play B] from XT Ltd at a cost of $575.50 including freight. The playwri...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 745 APPLICANT LL APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: KI is to pay LL and NL $1,200.00 on or before 2 January 2024. Reasons 1. LL and NL engaged KI to install a new shower. They paid him $1,400.00 which included $200.00 for the shower mixer. However, the first time the shower was used it leaked. KI sent his plumbe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 121 APPLICANT FD Ltd RESPONDENT UD The Tribunal orders: UD is to pay the sum of $3,720.00 to FD Ltd on or before Thursday 23 March 2023. Reasons: 1. On 12 September 2022, UD, who was a prisoner on probation, signed an Agreement for Services to work as an independent contractor for FD Ltd for a period of two years. He need...
...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 Reheari...
...for his time [was] fair and reasonable”. It did not discuss the question of whether or not there were in this case “special circumstances”. [11] Regarding the non-application for legal aid issue the Committee referred to the Practitioner forming the view that the LSA was unlikely to fund the Applicant’s proposed litigation, and that it was a “fair assessment given the background to [the] proceedings”. The Committee found that no criticism could be made of the stance tak...
...Alim’s means was not raised by her but by the defendant and the non-parties. Mr O’Brien also said that 2 Nisha v LSG Sky Chefs New Zealand Ltd [2015] NZEmpC 65. Ms Alim disputed the claim that she had failed to comply with the directions of interlocutory judgment (No 6). It was argued that, in any event, the documents sought were not relevant in a legal sense, that they would not assist the Court, and that the time...