12520 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 60 APPLICANT RN RESPONDENT UM The Tribunal orders: UM is to pay $4,422.62 to RN by 14 March 2023. Reasons Has UM breached the contract with RN? 1. UM contracted with RN for the education of KH. UM agreed to the Terms and Conditions of the RN. She agreed to pay fees that were due for the service that RN pro...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2019] NZDT 1353 APPLICANT DT AND BY EMAIL RESPONDENT BJ Limited Attn: KC AND BY EMAIL The Tribunal hereby orders: BJ Limited is to pay DT $19,800 on or before 21 February 2019. Reasons 1. DT is insured with BJ. On 28 June 2017, she filed a claim with BJ in relation to the theft of her car, a 2008 [Car] which...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 270 APPLICANT IS RESPONDENT TM The Tribunal orders: TM is to pay IS the sum of $3,110.00 on or before 15 June 2023. Reasons: 1. IS moved into a flat with TM and other flatmates in November 2020. She paid a bond to TM who was the head tenant. They did not have a written sharing agreement, however, IS understood that...
...originally anticipated. LG viewed the boat with his partner on 19 December 2023 and decided that it was not what they wanted. He advised OG in an email that he would not purchase the boat and requested a refund. OG said the deposit was non-refundable. LG claimed to be refunded his deposit. 3. The issues to be determined to resolve the claim are: (a) Was LG entitled to cancel the contract? (b) If so, is LG entitled to be refunded his deposit? Was LG entitled to cancel the contrac...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 367 APPLICANT KL RESPONDENT SH The Tribunal orders: SH is to pay KL the sum of $150.00 on or before 5 July 2023. Reasons: 1. KL purchased a car from SH. At the time of purchase the car had some money owing on it, and a security interest registered to [bank]. 2. The parties agreed that SH would use the proceed...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 456 APPLICANT LE RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by LE against T Ltd is struck out because the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine the claim. REASONS 1. The Applicant, LE, sought family mediation services through [The Centre] regarding a dispute with her ex-partner. The Centre provides mediation services...
...AND ZWJ RESPONDENT Date of Order: 27 March 2013 Referee: Referee Benson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is struck out. [1] From 30 November 2012, the Applicants owned a house where ADR lived and rented a room to ZWJ. They claimed that ZWJ left without notice and owed money for unpaid rent; the time her boyfriend stayed in the property; outgoings (water, electricity and telephone); damage t...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2011] NZDT 146 BETWEEN ACT APPLICANT AND ZXI Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT AND ZXH Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 28 June 2011 Referee: Referee Perfect ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the matter is transferred to the District Court under s 36(2) of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 as a claim for exemplary damages is more properly determined in a...
...UTU SECOND RESPONDENT Date of Order: 21 April 2016 Referee: Referee Roberts ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed against both respondents. Facts [1] EG and EGE (the applicants) purchased a property from UT and UTU (the respondents) in late 2014 and moved into the property in January 2015. A short time later, the applicants’ neighbour informed them that a large amount of greywater was discharging onto...
...clearly articulated in the current pleading, namely a claim of unjustified disadvantage and dismissal.3 As counsel for the plaintiff point out, tikanga principles relevant to the employment relationship are an additional factual and legal layer that forms part of the claim. The point is relevant because particulars are focussed on facts, not evidence or law. In my view the request for further particulars as to what the defendant was required to do, as opposed to particulars of th...