CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 462 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT A Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. SX had a new house built by [Company 1] trading as “HI” in 2004/2005. [Company 1] was removed from the Companies Register in 2011 and [Company 2] had been trading as HI for some time. 2. A Ltd, which ha...
...ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 65 APPLICANT BH RESPONDENT JT APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) W Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by BH is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 August 2023, BH’s [vehicle] was damaged while it was parked outside [address]. BH’s daughter who was the driver at the time believed the damage was caused by JT whose vehicle was passing her car at the time she looked up. JT denies hitting the [ve...
...[2024] NZDT 88 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: J Ltd is to refund U Ltd $17,100 on or before 1 March 2024. Reasons 1. U Ltd admits it contracted to purchase a caravan for $143,0000 from J Ltd on 23 June 2023. U Ltd paid a deposit of $28,600 on 26 June 2023. 2. A number of customisations were requested, and these were actioned by J Ltd on receipt of the deposit. These included the fitting of two televisions and a satellite dish. 3. U L...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 187 APPLICANT OS RESPONDENT KS SECOND RESPONDENT NS APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) KB Limited The Tribunal orders: 1. KS and NS are jointly and severally liable to pay KB Ltd $3,178.40. Reasons: 1. OS’s car was parked on the road. A car hit OS’...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 118 APPLICANT HD RESPONDENT NU The Tribunal orders: NU is to pay $8,908.83 to HD on or before Friday 24 March 2023. Reasons: 1. HD purchased a four hectare lifestyle property from NU pursuant to a written agreement dated 25 November 2021. On 28 January 2022 HD took possession and within two weeks the toilet overflowe...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 6 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 289 APPLICANT C Ltd RESPONDENT Q Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Background 1. The claim relates to a trailer that C Ltd purchased from Q Ltd in October 2021. 2. At that time the business Q Ltd was owned and operated by Q (2017) Ltd. The business was subsequently sol...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 715 APPLICANT SG APPLICANT LN RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. LN is joined to the claim as an applicant. 2. M Ltd is to pay SG and LN $8,964.00 on or before Friday 12 January 2024. Reasons: 1. LN is the husband of SG, and the headstone in dispute was for LN’s father. For this reason, and because SG a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 375 FIRST APPLICANTS DI SECOND APPLICANTS (new party) RESPONDENT KB G Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. KB is added to the claim as Second Applicant. 2. The claim by DI and KB against G Ltd is dismissed. REASONS 1. DI and KB (together referred to as “the Applican...
...Although the final agreed price was $38,842.40, the contract was not written in a form compliant with the requirements set out in the Building Act for contract for building work on residential properties. 2. A $15,000 deposit was paid in March 2023. 3. In June 2023 BX incorporated a new company through which he now traded. V Ltd assumed the burden of completing the contract. 4. The terms of the contract excluded any cost for a PS1 with BX stating one was not needed because th...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 7 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 751 APPLICANT NT RESPONDENT ND SECOND RESPONDENT BQ THIRD OR SUBSEQUENT RESPONDENT R Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. R Ltd is to pay NT $5,000.00 on or before 2 February 2024. 2. The claim against ND and BQ is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NT bought a townhouse off the plans from R Ltd. NT says the townhouse a...