12922 items matching your search terms
Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 210 APPLICANT MU RESPONDENT QT Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. QT Ltd is to pay MU $95.00 on or before 4 April 2024 2. MU is not liable to pay QT Ltd $615.00 for infringement fees or additional costs relating to breach notices issued on 28 April 2023 or 3 May 2023. Reasons 1. MU’s son drives a [car] [registration number] which is owned a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 115 APPLICANT UH RESPONDENT QT Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. UH is to pay $93.00 to QT Ltd by 30 April 2024. 2. UH is not liable for any other amount that QT Ltd has claimed from him in regard Vehicle Registration [redacted] and the [company’s reference]. Note: QT Ltd was not represented at the hearing. QT Ltd was grante...
...land interests. (f) A fixture was set down to hear the application at Hamilton on 20 August 2019. (g) On 13 August 2019, counsel for Ms Nicola Silcock advised that she had filed a Family Protection Act claim in the Whangārei Family Court and requested that the succession application be adjourned until the Family Court proceedings were determined. I declined this adjournment application as I considered that the question of whether the respondent is entitled to succeed under the...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 241 APPLICANT KH APPLICANT YM RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: KN is to pay KH and YM the amount of $3,153.40 on or before 16 January 2023. Reason 1. On 15 February 2022 the applicants entered into an agreement to purchase the respondent’s property in [suburb]. The property consisted of 3 separate dwe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 248 APPLICANT FL RESPONDENT C Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 8 October 2021, FL contracted C Ltd to make 6 bridesmaid dresses to a single design for $250.00 plus GST each. The bridesmaids each paid for their own dress. 2. The contract required each bridesmaid to provide her me...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 142 APPLICANT BI APPLICANT SI RESPONDENT BA The Tribunal orders: The Applicant’s claim is not proven and therefore dismissed. Reasons: 1. The Applicants are claiming $21,030.00 which they say is the amount that they paid to the Respondent in three cash payments (21 July 2015- $12,000.00, 27 J...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 50 APPLICANT TB RESPONDENT TN SECOND RESPONDENT LN The Tribunal orders: LN is ordered to pay TB the sum of $3,114.19. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 28 March 2024. Reasons: 1) On 10 March 2023, a collision occurred resulting in damage to the applicant’s car. This was in the applicant’s...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 190 APPLICANT D Ltd RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: L Ltd is to pay $13,479.63 to D Ltd on or before 30 May 2023. Reasons 1. L Ltd, as head contractor on a large construction job, contracted D Ltd to provide foundation works (materials and labour) to the [Address] site. 2. The...
...TRUSTEES OF THE I M TAPLIN FARMING TRUST [2022] NZEmpC 95 [30 May 2022] IN THE EMPLOYMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH I TE KŌTI TAKE MAHI O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI [2022] NZEmpC 95 EMPC 169/2022 IN THE MATTER OF an ex-parte application for a freezing order BETWEEN LISA KINGIPOTIKI First Applicant AND JASON KINGIPOTIKI Second Applicant AND DARREN COLLINS Third Applicant AND AMANDA POTROZ Fourth Applicant...
IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2016] NZDT 1070 BETWEEN SR APPLICANT AND GI RESPONDENT Date of Order: 17 February 2016 Referee: Referee: Paton-Simpson ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim is dismissed. Facts [1] This claim involves two separate disputes between the parties, who were friends for many years. [2] In November 2014, Mr GI offered to take Mr SR’s coffee machine panels, along with...