12972 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 659 APPLICANT LM RESPONDENT MH The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. [2] The applicant claims damages following a motor vehicle collision on 17 June 2023. The applicant’s claim includes a claim for $60 for medical ex...
...not intend to mislead the respondent. The applicant claims he was never asked about his criminal history and did not realise he had an obligation to disclosure it. The applicant claims, ED, the car dealer he purchased the vehicle from filed in the forms on his behalf. The applicant claims he was only asked to sign a one-page finance agreement and has no knowledge of any insurance documents ED may have provided to the respondent. [4] This claim has been previously considered by both UG Ltd...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 567 APPLICANT ET RESPONDENT EF Ltd The Tribunal orders: This claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. The parties contracted for the supply of engineering design services for ET’s project in [Location]. 2. An estimate of costs for a standard project was provided and a deposit of $1,552.50 was paid to EF Ltd in December 2022. An initial...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 34 BETWEEN ABC APPLICANT AND ZZB RESPONDENT Date of Order: 25 March 2013 Referee: Referee Edison ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] ABC obtained travel insurance from ZZB for a trip to [a country] between 4 October and 6 November 2011. Section 3 of the policy (baggage & personal items) provi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 365 APPLICANT EG and SG RESPONDENT BT and MT The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons [1] EG and SG claim that their neighbours, BT and MT, have erected screens in BT and MT’s property near the parties’ joint fence. EG and SG find these unattractive and aesthetically displeasing. EG and SG also object that BT and MT have
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 398 APPLICANT OD FIRST RESPONDENT MW SECOND RESPONDENT FW The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed against both respondents. Reasons 1. In May 2022 OD and his husband were gifted a $1000.00 voucher for [restaurant] in [suburb]. The voucher was to expire in May 2023. OD says they tried to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 196 APPLICANT IN RESPONDENT FQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reason 1. The applicant purchased a bed from the respondent in December 2020. The applicant was unhappy saying there was a strong odour coming from the bedhead. She immediately complained about it but not being happy that the respondent did n...
...CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 150 [14 December 2018] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 150 EMPC 86/2018 IN THE MATTER OF proceedings removed from the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for further and better particulars BETWEEN ANNA MOLENAAR Plaintiff AND RIGG STUFF LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: K Murray, advocate for plaintiff P Butler,...
Find out the process a claim goes through from application to decision in this section. This diagram shows the process a claim goes through at the tribunal: Diagram of the process a claim goes through Read a glossary of the common terms used in the Weathertight Homes Tribunal
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 100 APPLICANT ZT RESPONDENT MN The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is withdrawn by the applicant. 2. The request for legal costs of $3,550.00 by MN is declined. Reasons 1. MN have requested that legal costs of $3,550.00 be awarded pursuant to section 43(2) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. 2. MN states tha...