Search Results

1. Bayne v Trustees of the Ngāti Rehua Ngāti Wai Ki Aotea Trust (2019) Chief Judge's MB 1432 (2019 CJ 1432) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...Rehua Ngāti Wai ki Aotea Trust Board (the Trust Board), who is the respondent in this matter. [2] A judicial conference was held on 15 April 2019. Following this, parties were directed to file written submissions and evidence supporting their claims with the Court. Ms Bayne filed submissions on 25 April 2019. Submissions from the Trust Board were received on 13 June 2019, followed by submissions in reply from the applicant on 14 July 2019. [3] The Crown has maintained a watching b...

2. BN v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 633 (2 November 2023) [pdf, 180 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 633 APPLICANT BN RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. O Ltd is to pay BN $468.90 on or before the 27 November 2023. 2. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. BN purchased a [sewing machine] and as part of the purchase price paid postage. When the sewing machine arrived, it was damaged. It was return...

3. ED v G Council [2023] NZDT 558 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 228 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 558 APPLICANT (respondent in counterclaim) ED RESPONDENT (applicant in counterclaim) G Council The Tribunal orders: Both claims are struck out. Reasons 1. ED’s claim is for $29,949.00 which he says are the costs incurred by him in pursuing a resource consent subdivision application. These costs included surveyors an...

4. AX v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 654 (11 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 654 APPLICANT AX RESPONDENT S Limited The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reason 1. The dispute is about a S Limited hot water system installed at AX’s property in late 2021. In January 2024 AX contacted S Limited to say the hot water lasted only a few moments before turning cold. Unhappy that S Limited said the unit was not faulty, AX purcha...

5. JA v KQ & BT [2021] NZDT 1355 (20 January 2021) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...SECOND RESPONDENT BT The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out under section 19(1)(h)(i) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 as no reasonable cause of action against these respondents has been presented. Reasons 1. JA claims $20,521.45, being money that she had invested in term deposits with a company, [Investment Company] Limited, which then went into receivership on 1 April 2020 and into liquidation on 24 July 2020. 2. KQ and BT were directors of [Investm...

6. DT v BJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1353 (21 January 2019) [pdf, 251 KB]

   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...

7. E Ltd v MN as trustee of NC Family Trust & OC [2024] NZDT 182 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 165 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 182 APPLICANT E Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT MN as trustee of NC Family Trust SECOND RESPONDENT OC The Tribunal orders: MN is to pay directly to E Ltd the sum of $12,062.35 on or before Thursday, 18 April 2024. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. All parties appeared at the hearing. [2] The applicant se...

8. ACT v ZXI Ltd and ZXH Ltd [2011] NZDT 146 (28 June 2011) [pdf, 29 KB]

   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...

9. IS v TM [2023] NZDT 270 (25 May 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   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...

10. MB v NQ [2020] NZDT 1374 (30 October 2020) [pdf, 195 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2020] NZDT 1374 APPLICANT MB RESPONDENT NQ The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. NQ engaged employment advocacy firm [Firm] to act for her in an employment dispute. At the time that contract was formed MB was contracting to [Firm] and became NQ’s advocate. 2. NQ’s dispute was to go to mediatio...