12937 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 31 APPLICANT LE RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: 1. BI is to pay the sum of $180.00 to LE on or before Friday, 1 March 2024. 2. Once BI has made the payment set out in order 1 above, LE is to make the [Brand] baby carrier that she purchased from BI reasonably available for collection by BI. BI (or his nominated agent) is to collect th...
...engaged Ms Tangilanu to assist them. The complaint alleges Ms Tangilanu promised she would get the complainant a work visa, entered a written agreement that did not comply with the Code, failed to make the application promptly, then belatedly made a request to the Minister and later lodged an application with Immigration New Zealand in relation to the husband. Further, after taking the initial step of making a request of the Minister, she did not have an agreement relating to the subsequen...
...APPEARANCES/COUNSEL Phillip Schmidt for appellant Dane Tui for respondent DECISIONS [1] The first issue in this appeal is the appellant’s application to reinstate Appeal No. ACA 281/88, which was withdrawn on 7 November 1988 at the Corporation’s request. There is an alternative application before the Authority, under Appeal No. ACA 16/08, being the appellant’s application for leave to appeal out of time, following the Corporation’s objection to the reinstatement of the 1...
Minute Book: 92 SI 225 Place: Wellington Present: J.V. Williams, Chief Judge Marie Parker, Clerk of the Court 28 February 2001 Date: Application No: A20000050990 Subject: Section: Chief Judge Te Whanau a Hinemataiao Puhirere Incorporation 30/93 On 22 January I received a letter from counsel for the Runanga 0 Onuku asking what the status of this matter was. Up until receipt of that letter I had thought that the matter had been disposed of. It transpires that a draft decis...
...ceased acting? 2 [4] The appellant’s position on the substantive appeal is that his shoulder condition should have cover as a stand-alone injury, and he is seeking a finding and a direction that he is entitled to the benefit of a separate claim for cover for the shoulder injury as at March 1980, when he was in employment. [5] The Corporation’s position is that the only cover available to the appellant is for an injury consequential upon the original injury suffered w...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1544 APPLICANT MC RESPONDENT SH The Tribunal hereby orders: The application is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On or about 14 December 2019, SH and MC entered into an agreement whereby SH would make for MC a full upper denture for a cost of $12,000.00 and a lower partial denture for a cost of $5,500.00 (total cost $1...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 189 APPLICANT SO Ltd RESPONDENT NI RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. SO Limited (hereafter SO Ltd) claimed that KI and NI received an unauthorised payment of $5,000 when KI resigned as a director and shareholder of SO Ltd and sought an order for its return. 2. KI...
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 662 APPLICANT EM RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In November 2023 EM’s secondary-school-age son BM responded to a [online selling website] advertisement and purchased a [Car] from KU for $10,300.00. EM says while BM worked hard after school to save and pay for this vehicle, EM himself has suffered a loss becau...
...BN saw EI’s advertisement on Facebook for a mare she was selling called X. BN purchased X from EI for $250.00 including transport, as a project to train up and sell. On 27 April 2022, BN sold X to UG (BN and UG are referred to together as “the Applicants”). 2. Some months later, UG discovered that X was in foal by which time the pregnancy was quite advanced. The pregnancy did not go well, and X needed specialist care and there was no suitable care on the [City 1]. UG sent X for sp...
...damage to [car 1]. [car 1] was a high performance car and therefore expensive to repair. 13. The repairers’ costs was $19,812.96 (including the excess). J Ltd have also added a tow charge and storage totalling $250 plus GST. The total amount claimed is therefore $20,100. 46. 14. AQ/MQ had no issues in relation to the costs. Conclusion 15. For the reasons above AQ must pay J Ltd, $20,100.46. Referee: Ms Gayatri Jaduram Date: 13 May 2024 Page 3 of 3...