CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 745 APPLICANT LL APPLICANT NL RESPONDENT KI The Tribunal orders: KI is to pay LL and NL $1,200.00 on or before 2 January 2024. Reasons 1. LL and NL engaged KI to install a new shower. They paid him $1,400.00 which included $200.00 for the shower mixer. However, the first time the shower was used it leaked. KI sent his plumbe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 625 APPLICANT BC RESPONDENT KC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. BC took his vehicle gearbox to KC to repair because it was slipping out of gear. He seeks $3,778.11 from KC for the repair cost of the gear box and the removal and installation of the gearbox by a third party. 2. The issues to be...
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...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 55 APPLICANT SB RESPONDENT G Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by SB against G Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. SB purchased an [fireplace brand] floor standing fireplace from G Ltd. SB now brings a claim against G Ltd for $4,205.05. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is the fireplace reasonably fit for purp...
...DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 227 APPLICANT JT RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. Q Ltd is to pay JT $95.00 on or before 18 March 2024. 2. JT is not liable to Q Ltd for $325.00. Reasons Introduction 1. On 15 August 2023 JT parked within the business location of [address]. She went into the bakery and returned a short time later. In or around 20 September 2023 she received a reminder letter from Q Ltd informing of an earlier Breach Notice for $95.00 th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 499 APPLICANT DE RESPONDENT SC APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) J Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. SC and DE were involved in an accident at the intersection of [Street 1] and [Street 2] on 26 November 2022. 2. The accident took place at night, in rainy condition...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 213 APPLICANT ME RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) On 5 September 2022 the applicant travelled on flight bookings made with the respondent from [City A] to [City B] with the intention of connecting with an ongoing flight to [International City 1]. The applicant says that his...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 274 APPLICANT LM RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. LM hired a camper van from U Ltd, taking the inclusive package. The day after the camper was uplifted, LM unfortunately had an accident in which he collided with a parked car. As a result, the camper had to be towed and...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 707 APPLICANT TC RESPONDENT NU The Tribunal orders: NU is to pay TC $759.00 on or before 31 January 2024. Reasons [1] TC claims from NU the cost of removing a large tree branch from his, TC’s, driveway. The branch had fallen from a tree on the neighbouring property, owned by NU. [2] TC said that on the morning of Wednesday 15 Oc...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 214 APPLICANT OOJ RESPONDENT QD Inc The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. OOJ is in the business of running poker events. In April 2022 OOJ was approached at one of their events by BE who apparently introduced himself as the manager of QD Inc. 2. BE entered into a contract with OOJ to run we...