12666 items matching your search terms
...to be made by HT to put the caravan into the condition he stated it was, without betterment, is 70% of the repair quote, being $4,935.00. Referee: L. Mueller Date: 1 November 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 rehe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 95 APPLICANT CF Ltd RESPONDENT UD The Tribunal orders: UD is to pay CF Ltd the amount of $6,000.00. Payment is to be made on or before 10 April 2023. Reasons 1. UD was a long-term customer of CF Ltd through his various companies that operated the card accounts. During 2017, CF Ltd was notified that the company tha...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 473 APPLICANT CQ Ltd RESPONDENT CE APPLICANT'S INSURER B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. CE is to pay B Ltd the sum of $11,984.02 by 30 June 2024. Reasons 2. On 2 February 2023 NB was in his van on the median strip on [Road]. He was planning to turn right. CE turned right out of the exit of [address] onto [Road]. H...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 115 APPLICANT HU RESPONDENT UX The Tribunal orders: UX is to pay $1,305.50 to HU on or before 7 October 2022. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. After responding to an advertisement on Trademe, on 13 April 2022, HU purchased a [vehicle] UX for $17,900. The transaction was a private sale and took place in [City]. Th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 332 APPLICANT KE RESPONDENT JM The Tribunal orders: JM is to pay $1,000.00 to KE before 29 May 2024. Reasons 1. KE purchased a [puppy] from JM in March 2023. The puppy was advertised as ‘[breed 1]’ with both parents being ‘pure bred.’ 2. Following her concerns regarding some of [the puppy]’s characteristics (nose to...
IN THE MAORI LAND COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AOTEA DISTRICT Place: Rotorua Present: L R Harvey, Judge Date: 4 August 2003 Application No: A19990012658 Subject: Okahu B1A Section: 18(1)(c),18(1)(d)/93 Hearing: 30 October 2002 Previous Evidence 120 Aotea MB 271 DECISION AS TO COSTS Introduction Minute Book: 129 AOT 212 On 18 June 2003 in a Reserved Decision issued in respect of the above application, I invited the successful party to submit a memorandum on the issue of costs w...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2015] NZDT 838 BETWEEN EI APPLICANT AND UR LTD RESPONDENT Date of Order: 29 October 2015 Referee: Referee Blyth ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] EI agreed to leave her car in Henderson overnight in the workshop of UR Ltd. That night the workshop burnt down and EI’s car was damaged. [2] EI is claiming that UR Ltd is liable to repair he...
LI V HUANG NZEmpC WN [2012] NZEmpC 119 [24 July 2012] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT WELLINGTON [2012] NZEmpC 119 WRC 7/12 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER OF an application for a stay of proceedings BETWEEN FEI LI Plaintiff AND WANZHI HUANG Defendant Hearing: (on the papers and by way of telephone conference call held on 24 July 2012) Counsel: Graeme Ogilvie, counsel for pl...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 278 APPLICANT NQ RESPONDENT TN SECOND RESPONDENT P Ltd THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT JN THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT NN The Tribunal orders: P Ltd is to pay NQ the sum of $30,000.00 by no later than 25 August 2023. Reasons: 1. [NQ and husband] were approach...
LCRO 11/2012 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 5 BETWEEN CCO (UB) Applicant AND OZ Respondent DECISION Background [1] The Practitioner, OZ, undertook work for UB’s business, CCO (the Applicant) throughout November 2010 to February 2011, but did not complete the work contemplated by the retainer a...