12515 items matching your search terms
1 [2011] NZWHT AUCKLAND 69 UNDER the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 IN THE MATTER of a reconsideration of the Chief Executive’s decision under section 49 CLAIM NO. 6754: CHRISTOPHER ADAMS JOSEPH WARD: 3435 State Highway 5, Te Pohue, Napier ELIGIBILITY DECISION OF THE CHAIR OF THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL The Claim [1] Christopher Adams is the owner of a leaky home. On 25 August 2011 he filed an application for an...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 122 APPLICANT TE RESPONDENT EX The Tribunal orders: Both claims are dismissed. Reason 1. TE and EX share a boundary. TE claims EX cut a communications cable causing damage to his home automation system including the electric gate control and lighting. EX says TE cut down trees on EX’s side of the boundar...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 34 APPLICANT J Ltd RESPONDENT TQ The Tribunal orders: TQ is to pay the sum of $983.25 to J Ltd by no later than 8 March 2024. Reasons: 1. J Ltd claim a man, now known to be TQ, entered their premises on 8 November 2023 and purported to be interested in buying a car. When TQ asked to test drive [car 1], he presented a drivers lice...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 78 APPLICANT SG RESPONDENT UT The Tribunal orders: UT is ordered to pay SG the sum of $1,476.00. Payment of this sum is ordered no later than 17 March 2023. Reasons: 1) There was no appearance of the respondent, and the hearing proceeded in his absence. The applicant, and the respondent, are the owners of adjoining propertie...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 643 APPLICANT DE RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) In September 2021 the applicant bought a vehicle from the respondent-trader. The price paid was $23,380.00. This included a 2 year mechanical warranty at a cost of $1,480.00. 2) The applicant says that since he bought the vehicle it “has been un...
Introduction to Weathertight Homes Tribunal Guide to adjudication of claims under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 https://www.govt.nz/ http://www.justice.govt.nz/ Introduction to Weathertight Homes Tribunal Guide to adjudication of claims under the Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2006 The purpose of the Weathertight Homes Tribunal is to provide speedy, flexible, cost-effective resolution for leaky home claims brought under the Weathertight Homes Res
...MT RESPONDENT MI The Tribunal orders: The claim by BX and MT against MI is partially proved. MI is to pay BX and MT the sum of $1,842.50 on or by 5:00pm on 14 February 2024. Reasons 1. In 27 December 2022 BX and MT (the applicants) entered into a sale and purchase agreement with MI (the respondent). The applicants now bring a claim against the respondent for $7,840.83. 2. At the outset of the hearing the respondent accepted that she would pay for the remova...
...Reasons: 1. BE and TE hired NX Photography (“NXP”) for their wedding in November 2017. They chose a photography package offered by NXP and added a fusion video to be created. This cost an extra $800. 2. To obtain the fusion video, the Applicants had to select a hundred photographs from the wedding and NXP would use a particular software to create the fusion video. 3. BE and TE reached out to NX, the owner of NXP, in March 2024, some six and a half years after the wedding t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1693 APPLICANT CC RESPONDENT LL T/a TW The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 26 February 2021, after seeing an advertisement on Trade Me, CC agreed to purchase a Rotweiller puppy from LL at a price of $2,600.00. He paid a “non-refundable” deposit of $500.00. They agreed that the balance would...
...LCRO 243 /2010 CONCERNING An application for review pursuant to Section 193 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act 2006 AND CONCERNING a determination of the Auckland Standards Committee 5 BETWEEN MR IC Of [North Island] Applicant AND MR QX Of [North Island] Respondent The names and identifying details of the parties in this decision have been changed. DECISION [1] Mr IC (the Applicant) filed complaints against Mr QX (the Respondent) which were...