Search Results

1. List of offenders awarded compensation A-E

   If you‘re a victim of an offender named in a notice of payment into the Victims’ Claims Trust Account, you may be entitled to make a claim against the money awarded to the offender. Notice of end of process for making and determining victims’ claims Notice of payment into Victims’ Claims Trust Account This is the current list of offenders that have been awarded compensation - surnames A-E: Daniel Philip DIACK AKA Daniel Philip DLOCK Katrina Roma Epiha Daniel Philip DIACK AKA Daniel Phi...

   Located in:

   1. Tribunals >
   2. Victims & justice >
   3. Victims' Special Claims Tribunal >
   4. List of offenders awarded compensation

2. Kaituna Resource Teacher's Notes [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...prepared with fourth form curriculum in mind, however they can be used at all levels of secondary school. They can be used together or separately. The aim of the fact sheets is to introduce the work of the waitangi Tribunal both by showing what claims are and the process they go through, and by providing a case study. The case study - Kaituna Claim - has been set up as a decision-making exercise for students. The recommendations that the Waitangi Tribunal made have been left to...

3. KT & XG v ZA [2022] NZDT 30 (5 May 2022) [pdf, 101 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 30 APPLICANT KT and XG RESPONDENT ZA The Tribunal orders: ZA is to pay $516.09 to KT and XG on or before 27 May 2022. Reasons 1. In March 2021 KT and XG booked ZA’s [Travel website] accommodation in [City A] for the dates 1 November to 7 November 2021, paying the price in full of $1032.18 for the stay....

4. M1 Ltd v M2 Ltd & FS [2023] NZDT 739 (15 December 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 739 APPLICANT M1 Ltd RESPONDENT M2 Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT FS The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons Introduction 1. M1 Ltd have filed a claim (the current claim) for $30,000.00 in relation to a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) that was not provided prior to the settlement of a property transaction for the...

5. BK v YP Ltd [2013] NZDT 422 (25 November 2013) [pdf, 64 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2013] NZDT 422 BETWEEN BK APPLICANT AND YP LIMITED RESPONDENT Date of Order: 25 November 2013 Referee: Referee McKinstry ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] On 22 March 2013 the applicant withdrew money from his bank account with YP Limited. The applicant says that he wanted to withdraw $3,300.00. The bank says that the applicant asked to wi...

6. 2017 archive

   On this page: Minimum claims for duty lawyers over the holiday period New family and civil legal aid application form Section 26 Parole Act applications Criminal legal aid applications and amendments to grant Consultation on proposed changes to mental health rosters Hearing times for criminal grants Call for Expressions of Interest in Chairperson of the Performance Review Committee End of year/New year payments New family and civil application form finalised New family and civil application for...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers >
   4. Whats New for lawyers providing Legal Aid

7. DR v BU Ltd [2022] NZDT 199 (22 November 2022) [pdf, 135 KB]

   Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 199 APPLICANT DR APPLICANT QT RESPONDENT BU Ltd The Tribunal orders: DR and QT’s claim against BU Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 22 August 2022, the applicants’ car was towed by the respondent from a private car park in [City]. The applicants paid $420.00 to have the car released. The applicants claim the respo...

8. S Ltd v TT [2024] NZDT 66 (11 January 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...receipt of the warranty for the insinkerator. S Ltd explained by email on 11 September that TT needed to register online to obtain the warranty and provided her with the information required to do this. 5. Although TT does not live alone, she requested that S Ltd come and read the serial number from the insinkerator for her. Times were offered by S Ltd on five days when they could do that for her. TT selected one but by the time she replied, S Ltd was all booked up for that time. TT...

9. [2010] NZEMPC 137 NZ Amalgamated Engineering Printing and Manufacturing Union v Steelfort Engineering Co Ltd [pdf, 40 KB]

   ...dismissed the plaintiff’s application. [3] In this proceeding, the plaintiff challenges the Authority’s determination by way of a hearing de novo. It seeks relief in the form of a determination that, by failing to provide the information requested by the plaintiff, the defendant breached its good faith obligations under the relevant provisions of the Employment Relations Act 2000 (the Act). The facts [4] The defendant is a privately owned family company based in Palmerston...

10. HRRT Guide to filing a reply [pdf, 462 KB]

    ...Chairperson and two members. Who can bring a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal? Each of the three Acts contains different rules which define who is entitled to bring a claim before the Tribunal. It is always important to check whether the Act is applicable in your case and allows the Tribunal to deal with the claim that you wish to defend. If in doubt, you should seek legal advice. Your local Citizens Advice Bureau or Community Law Centre may be able to provide some assistanc...