(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 225 APPLICANT DT RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: DT’s claim against T Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The applicant engaged the respondent to dig a trench and provide and drainage services to it in 2019. The applicant paid the respondent a total of $17,720.36 for these services. The applicant claims that after heavy rain in June 2022 and there...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 304 APPLICANT BL and DL RESPONDENT L Ltd RESPONDENT V Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. BL and DL purchased a [redacted] shade umbrella from L Ltd in November 2021 after they viewed the designs and fabric at L Ltd’s showroom. The umbrella was installed In January 2022,...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 345 APPLICANT IN RESPONDENT BI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In October 2022 IN and BI decided to register and produce a dance performance for the [the festival], which was to take place in [redacted]. No formal agreement was made, rather they started the process together as co-choreograp...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 139 APPLICANT DG RESPONDENT NQ The Tribunal orders: NQ is to pay DG $2,799.31 within 28 days. Reasons [1] DG claims from NQ the cost of electrical work that was done in order to rectify faulty work done by NQ. NQ denies liability. [2] DG said that his hot water system had been performing poorly in his house. He had...
...Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 720 APPLICANT VI SECOND APPLICANT BB Ltd RESPONDENT KN, QN and BQ The Tribunal orders: The claim and counterclaim are both dismissed. Reasons: 1. In 2023 VI signed an Agreement to Lease a shop in [Suburb] from the Respondent, intending to run a nail and beauty salon from the shop. The arrangement was short lived, and VI did not actually set up her salon or trade from the shop. The Resp...
...February 2022 that a [water pump] would suit their location because it “will be better suited to the flow the well is able to produce”. KK and BK agreed, and a pump of that description was installed. [3] The motor of the pump failed in September 2023, some 18 months after it was installed. KK and BK, who live in [Town 1] and have tenants in the property in which the pump was CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 installed, were obliged to travel from [Town 1] to [Town 2] to deal w...
...Ltd to replace the guttering and flashings on the new roof of a restaurant and to install new rain heads, pursuant to a written estimate of $12,722.45. LS’s prior roofing contractor had ceased trading. 4. Q Ltd completed the work on 5 October 2023 for $11,147.31, of which LS has only paid $1,000.00 on 17 October 2023. LS states he is “not happy with the work done” and “does not trust” Q Ltd. 5. LS claims the work is not complete and that there are leaks. No evidence of...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 647 APPLICANT TG RESPONDENT E Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 23 September 2023 at around 12:50 pm, TG was driving on State Highway 1 north of [Town 1] heading towards [Town 2]. She used the passing lane to overtake another vehicle, and when she pulled back into the left lane, her car hit a large poth...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 128 APPLICANT QN RESPONDENT NI The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In May 2019, NI engaged QN to do some painting on a holiday house she and her husband owned in [Address]. QN made some suggestions about other repair work that he could do and NI agreed for him to do that work as well. 2....
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 179 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT X Inc The Tribunal orders: The claim by TD against X Inc is dismissed. Reasons 1. TD was a member of X Inc for a number of years. TD now brings a claim against X Inc for $4000.00. 2. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Was there a contract between TD and X Inc? (b) If so, did X Inc...