CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 452 APPLICANT H Ltd RESPONDENT TB The Tribunal orders: TB is to pay the sum of $3,000.00 to H Ltd on or before Tuesday 3 October 2023. Reasons: 1. On 13 April 2023, car dealer H Ltd (the buyer) paid $2,000.00 to TB (the seller) for a [car] with mileage of around 173,000 km. The seller agreed to deliver the car in th...
...significant difficulties in dealing with [internet provider] because the account/connection was not in the name of the company or in his name. 4. TQ described ongoing attempts over the years to try and resolve the matter, but it was not until 2023 and the engagement of a new accounts person that contact was made with BE. With her assistance, the account with [internet provider] was closed. TQ stated that he finally managed to convince the company’s bank to cancel the direct debit a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 638 APPLICANT APPLICANT (joined) APPLICANT (joined) IQ Ltd DF US RESPONDENT ND Ltd The Tribunal hereby orders: The claim is struck out for lack of jurisdiction. Reasons: 1. IQ Ltd (herein Owners) filed this claim against ND Ltd on behalf of 2 of its members, US and DF, seeking a refund of $9,474.25 they jointly...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 66 APPLICANT BT APPLICANT NS RESPONDENT Q Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. Q Ltd is to pay $496.83 to BT and NS on or before 12 May 2023. 2. By virtue of the Slip Rule1, on 26 April 2023 two amendments have been made to the order dated 16 March 2023: (a) the amount awarded for the loss of the flowers has been amen...
...Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 25 APPLICANT LT RESPONDENT NC The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. In November 2023, NC had advertised a [motor vehicle] on [online application]. 2. LT was interested in the car and arranged to meet NC for a test drive. LT test drove the car on 8 November 2023. 3. On 9th November 2023, LT purchased the car. He initi...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 538 APPLICANT FX RESPONDENT KQ The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. REASONS Brief Details of Claim 1. KQ was engaged on contract to FX for a period of around 1.5 years. KQ’s contract was terminated in May 2023. 2. In July 2023, FX contacted KQ seeking a refund for discounted treatments KQ had given to family and others at a...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 5 APPLICANT HN APPLICANT SN RESPONDENT TT The Tribunal orders: 1. This order replaces my order dated 15 March 2023. In the reasons attached to the decision I misspelt HN and SN’s name, and I apologise for that error. I have therefore corrected that mistake. In paragraph 9, I also wrote the last word as “contact...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 458 APPLICANT ND RESPONDENT LB Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. ND is to return the shade cloth and fittings (but not the fittings attached to his property) to LB Ltd before 15 September 2023. 2. When LB Ltd has received the shade cloth and fittings it is to pay $2,000.00 to ND within twenty days. If ND does not retu...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 551 APPLICANT QD RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: L Ltd is to pay QD $1,200.00 by 3 October 2023. Reasons: 1. In February 2023, L Ltd cancelled QD’s booking on [Ferry 1], from [Town 1] to [City 1]. QD claims compensation of $3,297.06 for losses which he says resulted from the cancellation. 2. Both parties attended the hear...
CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 532 APPLICANT DL RESPONDENT ET The Tribunal orders: 1. Both the claim and counterclaim are dismissed. Reasons: 2. DL owns the property on [Address 1] and ET owns [Address 2] which sits below DL’s property. 3. Due to a weather event on 17 July 2021, a retaining wall on the boundary of the two properties partially collapsed. 4....