Search Results

1. D Ltd v C (NZ) Ltd [2024] NZDT 116 (17 April 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...[holiday accommodation] in [Town]. It uses C Ltd (Int) as one of its booking platforms. Within the [holiday accommodation] are 21 separate apartments, each listed separately on C Ltd (Int) as each apartment is individually owned. 2. In August 2023 the owner of apartment 68 died and that apartment was withdrawn from service while the estate was wound up. D Ltd followed the C Ltd (Int) process to cancel the affected C Ltd (Int) bookings. Several emails between it and C Ltd (Int)’s...

2. GM v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 722 (22 August 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...Ltd said that their business was not open to the public to walk in and it was only office staff that worked there and the only people that would go there were those with appointments. The google street view was referred to. The image is dated March 2023, 12 months prior to the incident. The image implies that N Ltd is open to the public in that they rent houses, do casual lettings and appears to have a reception area. There is also a N Ltd sandwich board on the street outside informing p...

3. BT v HT [2024] NZDT 353 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 353 APPLICANT BT RESPONDENT HT SECOND RESPONDENT K Ltd The Tribunal orders: HT is to pay the sum of $12,037.00 to BT on or before Tuesday 28 May 2024. Reasons: 1. On 1 May 2023, the applicant, who is a taxi driver, dropped off a passenger in a wheelchair to the [temple] at [address]. He parked in a designated loading zone, and left the hoist open while he escorted the passenger to the front entrance. When he...

4. M Ltd v Q Inc [2024] NZDT 743 (28 November 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 743 APPLICANT M Ltd RESPONDENT Q Inc The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1) On 1 September 2023 the applicant entered into a sponsorship agreement with the respondent. The sponsorship agreement was to the effect that the applicant would pay the respondent $335.42 per month. The total value of the sponsorship was $3,500.00, plus GST. Th...

5. TN v A Ltd [2024] NZDT 752 (1 October 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...therefore I have decided to proceed to consider the claim in its absence. Background [3] The applicant disputes charges and raises concerns regarding the quality of service provided by the respondent A Ltd, her broadband provider since 27 September 2023. Since commencing service with A Ltd, the applicant submits she has experienced significant issues with the broadband speed. The applicant contracted for high-speed fibre advertised at 878Mbps download and 866Mbps upload speeds. The...

6. MG v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 548 (23 July 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...between MG and the tenancy manager for L Ltd (TH). In the emails TH talks about payment having to be paid to the landlord (being the owner of the neighbouring property from whom L Ltd had a headlease). For example, TH says in an email dated 13 October 2023: CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 I have spoken to our accounts team and as you are not a payee in the system this needs to go to our owner for payment. I have emailed him the details and asked him to send an invoice so we can p...

7. EQ & KQ v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 606 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...work and legal fees? Was the califont present at the date of settlement? 5. The parties agree that the califont was installed when the house was built but has been removed at some point. 6. KQ and EQ visited the property on 2 November 2023, and took photos as part of their final inspection, settlement was 4 November. KQ and EQ claim that when they moved in, they realised there was nothing to connect their gas bottles to, and the califont had been removed from the wall. They...

8. CL v HG [2024] NZDT 118 (7 March 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...incurred a cost to travel the following day, the cost of a shuttle to the airport and the cost to put her dogs into a kennel. 2. CL said that she also incurred the cost of tickets on the ferry for HG. They planned to go on holiday in December 2023 to visit CL’s sons. CL paid for the fare and claimed to be reimbursed for the cost of HG’s ticket. 3. HG sent an email that he would not attend the hearing by answering his phone. I did phone him in case he changed his mind,...

9. HI v KC [2024] NZDT 157 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 175 KB]

   ...[2024] NZDT 157 APPLICANT HI RESPONDENT KC The Tribunal orders: 1. KC’s address is changed to [new address]. 2. KC is to pay the sum of $100.00 to HI on or before Tuesday 16 April 2024. Reasons: 1. On 1 December 2023, KC and her husband entered into an agreement to sell their property at [old address], to HI. There had been prior negotiations, but the 1 December offer from HI had added to the chattels list two kayaks that were on the property, which had n...

10. IW v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 609 (8 August 2024) [pdf, 176 KB]

    ...3. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing from going ahead. CU did provide a written response to the claim, which has been taken into account. Background 4. IW bought two [phones] in December 2022. They were delivered in January 2023. The devices were advertised as IP68, which means they are dustproof and water resistant in fresh water to a maximum of 1.5m for up to 30 minutes. 5. In April 2024, IW says the device was accidentally submerged in fresh water for less th...