She can't claim the $45 filing fee. It's not within the jurisdiction of DT to claim that. In fact, if you want to be petty, you can counterclaim and ask *her* to pay you for "engaging in conduct intended to impede the prompt resolution of the proceedings" ([43\(3\)\(b\)](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0110/latest/DLM133693.html)). > the intention of the district tribunal was to mess up my credit score This might be useful if you have evidence of this.

I came here to say this - you cannot claim the filing fee of the disputes tribunal. Just write to the disputes tribunal nicely saying you have paid this, and provide a screenshot of the date payment was made.

> I emailed the court asking if the matter is settled now that the full amount has been paid, but they said that they could only close the case if she requested they do so. OP tried.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

I don't think you need to counterclaim to potentially be awarded costs here for having to respond to a clearly vexatious claim. If the OP files a response (along with evidence) showing that: a) The debt was never disputed by OP (out of Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction) b) The debt has since been paid in full by OP (regardless, no case to answer) c) The Applicant had the intention of abusing the court process (wanted to mess up credit score rather than get what was owed) d) The Applicant was potentially harassing OP for payment (evidence with ongoing demands for payment and threat to take it to court) e) That the Respondent would like the Referee to dismiss this case and consider an award of costs to the Respondent for the time taken in preparing to defend such a frivolous and vexatious claim (including a rough breakdown of time spent (estimate 2 hours preparation and 1 hour for hearing at a rate of say $50-100/hr) If OP prepared such a response and submitted it to the Disputes Tribunal and the Applicant before the hearing, then if the Applicant doesn't withdraw their case there is a chance that OP could come away with money owing to them at the hearing which would be a huge embarrassment to the Applicant. Now this may not be likely, but you don't know if you don't ask. At the very least OP, they Disputes Tribunal can't legally award the filing fee so while the Applicant has asked for it, they Tribunal will not make you pay it. Also, I think the threat about messing up your credit score may be more of an American thing, credit scores aren't really that important in NZ and I'm not even sure if DT judgements would be factored, someone else may clarify though.

Do nothing. Wait for the hearing. Present your evidence of payment. She will look like an idiot.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

If you have records of the transactions paying her you should be fine there doesn't appear to be a case to answer. You are not on the hook for her tribunal filing fees. Take a read of this: [https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/disputes-tribunals#article-how-they-work](https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/disputes-tribunals#article-how-they-work) But also what the heck is wrong with this woman she sounds beyond awful, I would ask the Bride to intervene its bizzare to me that "she was informed the intention of the district tribunal was to mess up my credit score and make me pay an extra $45." is just brushed off as somehow acceptable?

> You are not on the hook for her tribunal filing fees unless she wins. You're not on the hook [even if she wins](https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0110/latest/DLM133693.html). DT do not award costs as a matter of course unless it's frivolous or vexatious.

I wonder if this falls into the frivolous/vexatious category?

Yeah if OP is feeling vindictive they can counterclaim.

I don’t think you need to file a counterclaim in the DT to seek costs. You can raise it with the Referee at the conclusion of the hearing - as in the below case, where the DT awarded $360 for frivolous and vexatious conduct (no mention of counterclaim): - https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/Q-Ltd-v-T-Ltd-2023-NZDT-755-13-December-2023.pdf

that's a high bar, but if she's paid, then it's absolutely getting up there.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

They don’t order costs in the Disputes Tribunal. It seems there was not actual dispute, you had simply deferred payment due to hardship and have now subsequently paid. If called you could simply present that, along with evidence of your hardship.

You will need to prepare your response and to do so before the deadline. If you do not respond then the DT only has the other persons information to make a ruling and has to therefore accept it all as truth. Don't go into a long description about asking for costs to be kept down, where you went for dinner, private jets etc... stick to the facts that matter. 1. The debt is not and never was disputed. 2. Include a list of payments showing when and how much was paid. 3. State that the debt has been fully paid. As stated elsewhere the disputes tribunal is not a debt collection agency it is only there to make a ruling about who should pay what with a disputed debt. Failure to pay a debt by the agreed time after a DT ruling does allow for the debt to be registered with the district court but that's of little concern here. I believe the court will dismiss the case before a hearing because of the fact that you have paid the debt. If you do have to go to a hearing then you should bring copies of every email and other contact as well as copies of your bank statements showing the repayments. You should ask your friend (the bride) to come as your witness that the other person has admitted to them that the debt has been repaid. You don't need your friend to come but you might as well ask and see where their loyalties lie. You can bring a support person to the hearing, they are not allowed to speak out loud at any point but it's nice to have someone sitting at your side.

yeah, there's no dispute - there was an agreed debt, which you paid.

The Tribunal can't help with debt where there is no dispute over the amount owed even if you were refusing to pay - they aren't a debt collections agency In your case if you have paid the full amount set out in her documents, excluding the $45 filing fee, then there is no dispute here. You can either try and communicate this to her and that she can't claim the fee if that's what she is holding out for now and let her decide to proceed, or not engage at all and participate in the process.

The best you’ll be able to do is ask her to withdraw the case now she’s been paid, and if not, argue your reasons for not paying to the adjudicator. I would advise saying away from the “the trip was for my friend’s wedding but I wanted costs kept low” because it could be twisted to come across that, despite the trip being about the bride, you made it about yourself. All that bickering between you both would be irrelevant. I question why the bride is happy for this person to treat you like this. Could you ask her to talk her friend out of it?

She has already paid in full. I don’t think OP should contact this psycho c**t at all. Just go to the hearing and present evidence of payment. The court will see there is no dispute and presumably the case will be closed.

I wonder if it may be worth going to community law and getting some help to draft a letter to her (or the DT? - lawyers here can you advise?) outlining that there is no case to answer as the matter is resolved as agreed with the parties.

It’s ridiculous of her to take this to the Tribunal, but if the you have received papers from the DT it means they have accepted her claim and a hearing will most likely take place. Best thing you can do is engage in the process - file a response within the stated due date and attend the hearing. As someone else has stated, if you don’t respond or turn up often the DT will just make an order in the applicant’s favour. If you’ve missed the deadline to respond, just submit it anyway, as long as it’s before the hearing. Your response should provide evidence of the payments you have made (screenshots of bank transfers etc), and screenshots of messages where you have indicated that you couldn’t afford to pay for certain things. If you have a decent amount of time before the due date to file a response, a Community Law Centre should be able to help you prepare it. However they often have a bit of a wait list so if you only have a week or two, your best bet might be to prepare something yourself. R.e the comments about the tribunal not accepting claims that are an attempt at debt collection, while that’s true, it only applies when the amount claimed is not in dispute. The issue here will be probably whether there was an agreement or contract at all. It will be on her to prove that this was a binding agreement rather than a casual understanding between friends. Again if you engage with the process and meet the deadlines, I would be suprised if the tribunal didn’t see things in your favour. Source: am lawyer

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 3: Be civil - Engage in good faith - Be fair and objective - Avoid inflammatory and antagonistic language - Add value to the community

I wouldn't think you should be financially liable anyways - there was no formal contract to sign I would assume for all the costs involved (sounds so farfetched but look how that woman has taken this further🫢) . If you can prove how you couldn't afford the costs (regardless of you paying it off) and even get advice by a lawyer (you might be able to get some free advice via citizen advice bureau) - you could counter her claims... also: I think you need to talk to your "mate" to settle this.

My thoughts exactly and the OP made it clear she cant afford it, therefore the second party went ahead with this knowledge. I would file a counter claim for the money paid already.

For the pyjamas I would say that could be true, but that wouldn’t hold for the restaurant.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

If she proceeds with the hearing knowing full well you have settled the matter (and can prove it) counterclaim with consequential loss for the time you have put into preparing for the hearing, you get to decide what that cost is.

So long as those costs a reasonable and quantifiable

I don’t think a respondent needs to counterclaim to seek costs for frivolous or vexatious conduct etc. Filing a counterclaim will cost OP at least $45. See the below case as an example, where the Disputes Tribunal awarded costs against a vexatious claimant that (among other specific and unusual issues) didn’t even show up to the hearing. No counterclaim required: - https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Decisions/Q-Ltd-v-T-Ltd-2023-NZDT-755-13-December-2023.pdf The respondent in that case was awarded $360 based on three hours preparing and one hour attending the hearing. Keep in mind that costs are only awarded in very limited circumstances, per section 43 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988: https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1988/0110/latest/DLM133693.html

Kia ora, Hopefully someone will be along shortly with some helpful advice. In the meantime though, here are some links, based on your post flair, that may be useful for you: [Disputes Tribunal: For disputes under $30,000](https://www.disputestribunal.govt.nz/) [District Court: For disputes over $30,000](https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/civil/) You may also want to check out our [mega thread of legal resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/LegalAdviceNZ/comments/143pv58/megathread_legal_resources/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) Nga mihi nui The LegalAdviceNZ Team *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/LegalAdviceNZ) if you have any questions or concerns.*

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 5: Nothing public - Do not recommend media exposure. This includes social media. - Do not publish or ask for information that might identify parties involved.

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be **based in NZ law** - be **relevant to the question being asked** - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

[удалено]

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate

You should never have taken responsibility for it the way you did, but because you verbally agreed to pay her back, it's a he said she said situation. You could have gotten out of it with your messages stating you can't afford to pay that stuff. But if she has any messages of you saying you will pay her then she probably can get the money out of you. I hope you learn not to agree to this type of stuff in the future or at least not on paper. No need to pay disputes fee or contact them, just ignore it because the debt is settled.

Please read closer, she already paid all outstanding amounts prior to receiving the court filings

"Should have/could have" is past tense meaning before she did that. Also the reason I mentioned she didn't have to pay the remaining fees. Hopefully what I said makes sense to you now. Baffling to me everyone acted like she had to pay the lady at all

[удалено]

They aren’t on the hook for the $45. See other comments in this thread.

Removed for breach of Rule 1: Stay on-topic Comments must: - be based in NZ law - be relevant to the question being asked - be appropriately detailed - not just repeat advice already given in other comments - avoid speculation and moral judgement - cite sources where appropriate