CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 8 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 531 APPLICANT MC APPLICANT TC RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. 2. The counter-claim is dismissed. Background 1. In October 2022, MC and TC booked a 5-day [trek] with B Ltd. 2. The cost was $7,500.00. 3. MC and TC arrived at the [ranch] on 17 April 2023 for the commencement of t...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 186 APPLICANT EC RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. EC was a customer of U Ltd and among other things had a house insurance policy with U Ltd. EC’s house comprises two units, his home and a separately tenanted flat downstairs. In 2022 U Ltd changed the house insurance policy f...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 739 APPLICANT M1 Ltd RESPONDENT M2 Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT FS The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons Introduction 1. M1 Ltd have filed a claim (the current claim) for $30,000.00 in relation to a Building Warrant of Fitness (BWOF) that was not provided prior to the settlement of a property transaction for t...
...was insufficient evidence to prove that. TT said that he had no reason to believe that DM tied the tarpaulin incorrectly. 9. I am satisfied that the claim against DM for damage that happened to SH’s property in the storm of 18/19 April 2023 is unfounded. There is insufficient evidence to prove that he failed to exercise reasonable care and skill. B. THE COUNTERCLAIM 10. There is no dispute that two invoices DM presented to SH for work at her house have not been pa...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 550 APPLICANT DS RESPONDENT HW The Tribunal orders: 1) HW’s claim against DS is struck out. 2) DS’s claim against HW is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 10 April 2021, DS took his son’s motorbike engine to HW for repairs and parts. He said that the bike was working but jumped when it was kickstarted. He paid $800.00 to...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 33 APPLICANT OB RESPONDENT BB APPLICANT'S INSURER (if applicable) X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed as liability has not been established against either driver. Reasons 1. In October 2020, BB and the driver of OB’s car, BH, were both driving in the same direction down [Road A], with BB’s c...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 216 APPLICANT NM RESPONDENT LK The Tribunal orders: LK is to pay NM $9,000.00 within 28 days. Reasons [1] NM claims that LK misrepresented the condition of a horse that she purchased from LK, and claims compensation of $9,000.00. LK acknowledges that she misrepresented the state of the horse, but does not accept that she i...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 251 APPLICANT MX RESPONDENT X Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. MX contracted X Ltd to provide dental treatment to straighten her teeth. Dr T recommended a treatment using [orthodontic product]. Treatment continued for three years, after which time, Dr T advised the treatment...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 114 APPLICANT EI APPLICANT RA RESPONDENT IL RESPONDENT INSURER (if applicable) U Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The Applicants’ claim is dismissed. The Respondent’s counterclaim is upheld and the Applicants are to pay the Respondent’s Insurer U Ltd $4,606.44 within 30 days of the date of this order....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 724 APPLICANT NT RESPONDENT T Ltd SECOND RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. L Ltd is added as a respondent to this claim. 2. The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. NT parked his car in a carpark owned and operated by L Ltd. As the ticketing machine was broken, NT needed to pay for his parking through the parking app,...