12922 items matching your search terms
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2010] NZDT 82 BETWEEN ABI APPLICANT AND ZYU Ltd (in liquidation) RESPONDENT Date of Order: 20 September 2010 Referee: Referee Benson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim against ZYU Ltd (in liquidation) is dismissed. [1] The hearing on 20 September 2010 was attended by ABI and KL, who was a director of ZY...
...Maori and Crown. However, there was dispute over the reasons for the lack of distribution of funds; whether it was the fault of the Act, the deed, or the trustees at fault (although it was noted that a major problem appears to be the complicated application form). An affidavit by B P Quinn, who has been closely involved in the Crown forestry asset sale in 1988 and ensuing negotiations, supported the view that the trust deed is not consistent with certain principles agreed in the origi...
...[2018] NZEmpC 102 [6 September 2018] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH [2018] NZEmpC 102 EMPC 250/2017 IN THE MATTER OF a challenge to a determination of the Employment Relations Authority AND IN THE MATTER of an application for further and better particulars BETWEEN GEORGINA RACHELLE Plaintiff AND AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED Defendant Hearing: On the papers Appearances: G Rachelle, plaintiff in person A Cai...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1533 APPLICANT BB RESPONDENT DN Limited The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. BB took out a travel insurance policy with DN Limited through BNJ for a three-week holiday in [Country]. BB made a claim on her insurance for the loss on 10 June 2019 of an Omega watch, a diamond and emera...
...BOYS 30 November 2021 ___________________________________________________________________________ INTRODUCTION [1] This decision is about whether the Earthquake Commission (EQC) and Tower Insurance Limited (Tower) may be removed from this claim due to an application under s 11 of the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal Act 2019 (the Act) bringing the matter to an end. [2] On 27 August 2021, the Tribunal found that EQC’s decision to decline claims for damage from the...
...any of the conferences or hearings. • Again, this person can be anyone you choose – a friend, colleague or family member. 2 About this guide In this guide we explain how the Canterbury Earthquakes Insurance Tribunal works from the time an application is made to the time it is resolved. We want everybody involved to know what to expect as they participate in the process. There are five parts: 1. Who can apply – this is the first step in the process, and this section lets you...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 761 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal declares and orders: 1. The claim by Q Ltd for TD to pay $536.00 is dismissed. 2. The claim by TD for reimbursement of her filing fee is dismissed. Reasons: 1. TD has applied for an order that she is not liable to pay Q Ltd for a parking breach notice and collection costs ($395.00). Her cl...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 635 APPLICANT LS and NA RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. NA parked in a parking area for customers of her GP practice when she had a doctor’s appointment on the morning of 23 July 2024. When she returned to her car after her appointment, she found that it would not start. She contacted her...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1497 APPLICANT UC and NT Family Trust (trustees UC and NT) RESPONDENT TT Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. UC and NT (trustees of The UC and the NT Family Trust (Trust)) is claiming $4,063.74 being: a. $346.75 for balance of rental they say was owing at Covid -19 Level 3 b. $20.60 (
...point, I place little weight on K’s evidence. He has not attended the hearing and it is equally likely that he told his boss what he wanted to hear, that is that he followed protocol in inspecting the vehicle prior to the hirer as he did not, as claimed by the applicant. [12] Further the photographs provided are of little benefit. They are not dated and despite careful inspection I can see not sign of damage. I accept a highly qualified professional may recognise some damage in the s...