VadeLab
StatuteCredit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003

Section 87 — Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003: Jurisdiction of Disputes Tribunals

Text of the provision Official document

87 Jurisdiction of Disputes Tribunals (1) A Disputes Tribunal established under section 4 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for orders under sections 41 , 69 , 80 , 82 , 90 , 93 , 120 , and 122 if the total amount in respect of which an order of the Tribunal is sought is not more than $7,500. (2) A Disputes Tribunal established under section 4 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 has jurisdiction to hear and determine applications for orders under sections 58 and 59 if, at the date that the claim is lodged with the appropriate Tribunal, the unpaid balance under the consumer credit contract does not exceed $7,500. (3) An order of a Disputes Tribunal under this Act must not— (a) require a person to pay an amount exceeding $7,500: (b) declare a person not liable to another person for an amount exceeding $7,500: (c) vest any property exceeding $7,500 in value in any person: (d) direct the transfer or assignment or delivery of possession of any property exceeding $7,500 in value. (4) An order of a Tribunal that exceeds any restriction specified in subsection (3) is entirely of no effect. (5) If, in respect of any proceedings properly before a Disputes Tribunal, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal has been extended under an agreement made under section 13 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 , subsections (1) to (3) are to be read as if every reference in those subsections to $7,500 were a reference to $12,000. Compare: 1981 No 27 s 45A

Official source: legislation.govt.nz

There are no decisions in our collection citing this provision yet. As new judgments are published, they will appear here.

Search case law on this topic

See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.

Explore case law →

Statutory text from an official public source. Informational content — does not replace advice from a qualified lawyer.