13076 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 167 APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT CU SECOND RESPONDENT KU The Tribunal orders: The claim by SN against CU and KU is dismissed. Reasons 1. SN engaged a contractor to build a boundary fence on her rural property. SN now brings a claim against CU and KU for $8,682.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Wa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 86 APPLICANT GE RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counterclaim is struck out Reasons 1. On or about 31 October 2021, M Ltd attended [Road A] to price a refurbishment of a deck for GE. M Ltd presented GE with a quote for $6,301.25 plus GST which outlined the scope of work to be und...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 455 APPLICANT BD RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: B Ltd is to pay the sum of $447.99 to BD on or before Thursday, 27 June 2024. REASONS 1. The Applicant, BD, needed her [Appliance Brand] washing machine (“the Machine”) repaired because it was showing an F53 error code fault. BD was referred by [Appliance Brand] to the Respond...
...replied suggesting Ms XY’s enquiries be directed to Mr SR. For the purposes of this review, the difference is inconsequential because Mr HG does not contend that he provided explanations, information or otherwise cooperated with Ms XY as she had requested. [15] Between 2010 and 2012 Ms RM and Ms PR made a number of enquiries, and had a number of meetings.6 Ms PR says she is limited by Ms XY’s privilege from detailing what those enquiries were, or who the meetings were with. H...
...INTERLOCUTORY JUDGMENT OF CHIEF JUDGE GL COLGAN [1] There are two preliminary issues to be resolved before this case can go to hearing. The first is whether Evolution E-Business Ltd (Evolution) should be able to defend Benjamin Smith’s counterclaim because the time for filing a statement of defence to that has expired. The second issue is whether the company should give security for costs on its claims. [2] Should the plaintiff have leave to file out of time a statement of de...
...under the Bill of Rights Act, which is limited by the extension of limitation periods to that Act in cl 11(2)(c); and 1.2 The right of non-discrimination on the grounds of ethnicity, which might be seen to be limited by the separate provision for claims in respect of Maori customary land (cl 26). 2. The Bill, which replaces the Limitation Act 1950, provides for the clarification and certain substantive changes to limitation periods for civil claims. In particular, the Bill: 2.1 Replace...
Form 1 r 6 Notice giving prescribed information for defendant served in Australia SECTIONS 8(1)(A) AND 15 TRANS-TASMAN PROCEEDINGS ACT 2010 (NZ) IF THE PERSON TO BE SERVED IS NOT DESCRIBED IN THE INITIATING DOCUMENT AS A DEFENDANT, SUBSTITUTE THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION IN THE HEADING OF THIS NOTICE. Please read this notice and the attached document very carefully. If you have any trouble understanding them, you should get legal advi...
LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER ĀPIHA AROTAKE AMUAMU Ā-TURE [2021] NZLCRO 030 Ref: LCRO 183/2020 CONCERNING an application for review pursuant to section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the [Area] Standards Committee [X] BETWEEN DX Applicant AND SQ Respondent DECISION The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. Introduction [1] Mr D...
...sought was for the allowance to be paid to the appellant as at the date of incapacity. Mr McCarthy also asked for copies of relevant documentation. [16] Unfortunately, the entire evidence for the appeal comprises the documents referred to above, the forms supporting the original RE assessment, the applications for review, all, apart from one of the applications for review, being filed by the appellant. [17] Despite being obliged under s 108(4) to provide copies of all relevant docu...
IN THE CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL CEIT-0036-2019 IN THE MATTER OF CANTERBURY EARTHQUAKES INSURANCE TRIBUNAL ACT 2019 BETWEEN L L and N M Applicants AND EARTHQUAKE COMMISSION First Respondent AND TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED Second Respondent Date: Hearing 8 July 2021, Decision 27 August 2021. Appearances: L L and N M, the applicants E Light counsel for the first respondent No appearance f...