CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 365 APPLICANT BX APPLICANT Q Ltd RESPONDENT QH RESPONDENT HB Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. HB Ltd is joined as a respondent to this claim. 2. QH and HB Ltd are jointly and severally liable to pay to BX and Q Ltd as Trustees of the Q Trust the sum of $5,465.94 on or before 29 June 2023....
...company. LO works as the building manager. Originally the claim was made against OC and LO personally, but A Ltd was added as a respondent to the claim as the legal owner of the premises. 3. The lease outlined a lease end date of 28 October 2023. The lease was not renewed by A Ltd and NP is no longer in the premises. 4. NP now claims $4,953.50 consisting of $4,320.00 for loss of visitor’s admission for her business [redacted], $60.00 for earthquake glue, $6.00 for a toilet...
Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 381 APPLICANT KK RESPONDENT HL The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In March 2023, HL advertised his [car] for sale on [online platform]. 2. On 9 April 2023, KK contacted HL saying she was interested in the car. 3. HL drove to KK so she could look at and test drive the car with the assistance o...
...Ltd, he says that many have never been addressed and that it became increasingly difficult to get a response from either company. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 5. There was brief contact between the parties around August and October 2023 when KX sent emails advising that if he receives no response or remediation plan within 7 days, he intends to engage his own contractors. I Ltd and L Ltd says that they tried to make a time to inspect KX’s home but he did not reply. K...
...followed up with an email confirming the agreement. 7. On 5 April 2022, the BL and KL made a claim with their insurer, J Ltd, for the overspray damage, which was accepted. The BL and KL chose a cash settlement of $28,944.31, which was paid in July 2023. 8. On 27 February 2023, J Ltd filed this claim for $16,158.97, which included the BL and KL’ $400.00 excess. 9. BL and KL made a submission referring to substantial uninsured losses but provided no details. BL and KL then we...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 332 APPLICANT TG APPLICANT TS RESPONDENT SECOND RESONDENT THIRD RESPONDENT NS NS Ltd BH APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) Applicant’s insurance company The Tribunal orders: 1. BH and NS Limited are both added as Respondents in the claim. 2. BH and NS Limited are jointly and severa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 88 APPLICANTS TX and AS RESPONDENTS WU and NU KT and WT TU and XV The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 2. TX and AS purchased a house from the respondents on 22 June 2022. They claim that they were misled into buying the house and are now seeking compensation for repairs which the house requi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 722 APPLICANT NB APPLICANT QD RESPONDENT H Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. During the latter half of 2022, H Ltd were doing repair work on the property belonging to the Applicants. The Applicants were not living on the property. In late January 2023, the Applicants left some belongin...
...APPLICANT TM APPLICANT YM RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. K Ltd are to pay $15,000.00 to TM and YM. Reasons 1. The applicants purchased a kitchen from the respondent pursuant to a contract dated 17th January 2023. The kitchen was installed in April 2023. 2. The applicants claim that the respondent described the kitchen as being as solid wood but that they discovered after the kitchen was installed that the kitchen is not solid wood but has MDF...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 12 APPLICANT CL RESPONDENT ND The Tribunal orders: ND is to pay CL $685.71 within 28 days. Reasons [1] CL and ND were flatmates. They signed an agreement on 7 May 2022, in which CL was described as the head tenant. Weekly rent was to be $200.00, and a bond of $4000.00 was payable by ND. Under the agreement, ND was obliged, i...