12535 items matching your search terms
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 351 APPLICANT SQ RESPONDENT UI The Tribunal orders: Please email both parties this order. Both parties requested email address remain confidential for security reasons. They are not entered on this order. 1. This claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. SQ and UI were in a short-term relationship during 2021. In...
...workplace, marital and health related issues. In August 2014, the applicant’s GP treated her for migraines. Ultimately, she left her job, her marriage broke down, and in early 2015 she moved to Australia. [3] On 8 March 2019, an ACC injury claim form was filed for a sensitive claim said to relate to an event on 8 March 2014. The claim form indicated that the applicant preferred to have no contact with the Corporation and was not happy to discuss the matter on the telephone....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 514 APPLICANT EX RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 January 2024 EX purchased a bag that attaches to a bike from O Ltd after seeing the advisement on Trade Me. When the bag arrived he fixed it to his bike and noticed that it had a small cut in the fabric. He used the bag, and after...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 87 APPLICANT SI RESPONDENT KB SECOND RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: A. X Ltd is added as Second Respondent. B. The claims are dismissed. Reasons 1. In August 2023, SI engaged X Ltd to clean her house before the settlement day for her sale of the house. KB is the director of the company. SI alleged that some...
...recipient twice while another intended recipient did not receive a grant at all. [2] More importantly, the trustees also allege that two applicants for grants and scholarships, connected to one of the trustees, wilfully or negligently, made false applications when they knew or ought to have known that they were not entitled to do so. In addition, I infer, there appears to be a suggestion that one of the trustees, Sandra Matenga, may have facilitated this set of outcomes knowing tha...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 8 APPLICANT EL RESPONDENT FO The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. EL contracted FO to make a 21st birthday cake for her daughter’s upcoming 21st birthday celebration. Discussions as to the icing requirements and design took place, mostly by text, with specific requests for blue ma...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 106 APPLICANT KN RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay $5,800.00 to T Ltd on or before 20 March 2023. REASONS Brief Details of Claims 1. KN owns a property at [Address]. KN submitted an Application for Resource Consent to subdivide the property into three lots. There was an existing house on the propo...
...to support attendance at Waitangi Tribunal events .............................................. 2 The Ministry can book and pay for travel and accommodation on your behalf ................................. 3 You can organise your own travel and request reimbursement ........................................................ 3 How to request reimbursement – what is required ........................................................................... 4 Need support with a request for re...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 585 APPLICANT IU RESPONDENT TS APPLICANT'S INSURER JK Ltd The Tribunal orders: TS is to pay directly to JK Ltd the sum of $10,507.46 on or before 29 November 2023 or such further time as agreed by IU’s insurer. JK Ltd is to refund to the applicant $400, the insurance excess from the first monies received, o...
...were noticed by the Applicants, whose lawyer notified A Ltd of the list of items that required remedying prior to settlement of the sale. The settlement went ahead before the defects were remedied and following settlement, the Applicants again requested that the defects be remedied. When the A Ltd did not address the request, the Applicants brought their claim to the Tribunal. 3. Following two hearings which were adjourned to allow the remedial work to be carried out, A Ltd remed...