Search Results

1. GU & OG v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 4 (5 January 2024) [pdf, 195 KB]

   ...balance of probabilities that there was moisture or water which over time is likely to have caused the damage. I find that the defects do not seem to be from the failure of the materials used on the cabinet doors. 15. I am not satisfied that the applicants have been able to sufficiently prove their claim. 16. The claim is dismissed. Referee: D Alofivae Date: 5/1/2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if yo...

2. CT & KT v BD [2024] NZDT 478 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 478 APPLICANT CT APPLICANT KT RESPONDENT BD The Tribunal orders: BD’s application to apply out of time for a rehearing is declined. His application for a rehearing is dismissed. Reasons: 1) On 7 September 2023, the Tribunal made an order that BD pay KT and CT the sum of $4,299.85. The Tribunal found that, with respect...

3. Legal Aid Fee Glossary

   ...for your work up to case management, sentencing (where the client is remanded off) or until charges are resolved. Schedules A-F When additional charges are added to legal aid grant When additional charges are added to legal aid grantThis fee can be claimed each time a single charge or set of charges are added to the grant.This is a repeatable activity and can be claimed per occurrence.  If a set of charges are added, the fee cannot be claimed for each individual charge.Please note that...

   Located in:

   1. About >
   2. Lawyers & service providers >
   3. Legal aid lawyers >
   4. Legal aid provider resources >
   5. Criminal fixed fee finder

4. FC v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 255 (20 December 2022) [pdf, 197 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 255 APPLICANT FC RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is to pay FC $128.50 by 10 January 2023. Reasons: 1. In October 2022, N Ltd did cleaning at FC’s rental property. She says the cleaning was not to an acceptable standard and she claims a full refund. 2. Both parties initially appeared by teleconfer...

5. BD & SO v LM Ltd & LL [2024] NZDT 242 (21 March 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...transferred to them – it was not a ‘done deal’ in their view. During the week they were at the bar, they say various questions they had about the operation of the bar were not adequately answered and no GST or financial information was provided as requested. They therefore declined to proceed with the sale, and requested their $10,000.00 back. 9. BD and SO claim $26,947.27, being $10,000.00 refund of payment made, $7000.00 representing the time they both took off their usual wo...

6. LQ v PO Ltd [2019] NZDT 1435 (15 March 2019) [pdf, 99 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1435 APPLICANT LQ RESPONDENT PO Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is struck out as there is no new cause of action. Reasons 1. In February 2017 PO Ltd sold LQ an air conditioning unit and installed it at his property. LQ was not happy about aspects of the installation and complained to the Electrical...

7. FX & QX v MC Ltd [2022] NZDT 154 (22 September 2022) [pdf, 101 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 154 APPLICANT FX APPLICANT QX RESPONDENT MC1 Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. Claim Dismissed. 2. A copy of this Order is to be sent to SNO, [email address] for his information, as I have been advised that he is another Trustee but has not been named as an applicant to this claim. REASON 3.

8. IT v LL [2023] NZDT 620 (2 November 2023) [pdf, 172 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 620 APPLICANT IT RESPONDENT LL The Tribunal orders: The claim by IT against LL is dismissed. Reasons 1. IT and LL are neighbours who share a driveway area. 2. IT brought a claim against LL for $12,000.00 for loss of the enjoyment of looking at vegetation that he had nurtured. The sum of $12,00.00 represented $1000.00 per year for t...

9. BR & SR v LD & BD [2023] NZDT 740 (4 December 2023) [pdf, 212 KB]

   ...1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 740 APPLICANT BR APPLICANT SR RESPONDENT LD SECOND RESPONDENT BD The Tribunal orders: The claim and counterclaim are both dismissed. Reasons 1. The Applicants and the Respondents had discussed building a boundary fence. The Respondents thought agreement had been reached, but when building was about to start the Applicants indicated they did not agree. Discussions did not really progress...

10. BS v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 70 (27 February 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 70 APPLICANT BS RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Background 1. The adjournment order dated 13 November 2023 sets out the background to the claim. 2. BS submitted that: a. After the first hearing, she looked to file an ACC claim online. She watched a tutorial video which advised the claimant to h...