You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year. Identifying details have been removed.

Some decisions in this section have had minor editorial changes applied, that have no effect on the outcome.

Search results

603 items matching your search terms

  1. LQ Ltd v JN & BN [2022] NZDT 2 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Reasonable care and skill / Breach / Second respondent contracted with Applicant to repair hot water cylinder / Applicant claims payment on account / Respondents claim the cylinder lost heat three months after repairs after Applicant had attended property regarding payment / Respondents discovered issue with cylinder due to missing fuse / Whether it is more likely than not the Applicant removed the fuse; if so, how much is payable for work done / Held: Applicant most likely took out fuse / Held: Applicant not able to recover own charges but fees for work of third-party just and practicable to be paid / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $189.03 to Applicant

  2. BO & CO v MI [2022] NZDT 1 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Parties share an existing boundary fence / Respondent added to height of fence without consulting Applicants / Applicants claim for removal of the additonal height added to the fence and replacement of wooden fence with wire fence / Held: Respondent altered fence without consultation as required under s 9 of the Fencing Act / Alteration must be removed at the Respondent's cost / Respondent ordered to remove additional height and may retain cloth shade / Held: style and height of fence is satisfactory for purpose intended except containing chickens . Applicants ordered to install barrier suitable for retention of chickens / Outcome: claim allowed in part.

  3. GG Ltd v IN Ltd [2022] NZDT 3 (19 January 2022) [PDF, 238 KB]

    Contract / Companies Act 1993 / Applicant company placed in liquidation and through its liquidator brings a claim against Respondent for $17,1756.50 / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant / Whether Respondent entitled to set off for costs of GPS rental contract and sign writing / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant for unapproved invoices / Whether Respondent commencing or continuing legal proceedings against Applicant by claiming a set-off in breach of the Companies Act / Held: Respondent indebted to Applicant / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set sum owed to Applicant for sign writing / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set outstanding costs of GPS rental / Held: Respondent do not owe Applicant for unapproved invoices / Held: Respondent established a set-off and not a counter-claim / Claim dismissed

  4. NT v BP Ltd [2022] NZDT 5 (17 January 2022) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carriage of goods / Applicant purchased products from overseas company / Second respondent shipped goods in container / Container arrived at depot run by Third respondent / Third respondent unpacked container and repacked one falling over pallet / Once received applicant discovered damage to boxes / Applicant claims $3,680.73 as cost of unsaleable items / Respondent claims goods were damaged before it picked them up / Were goods damaged during contract of carriage by respondent / Held: yes / Photos taken by second respondent do not show damage / No damage noted when pallet repacked / Shrink wrap missing and damage consistent with forklift damage / Was contract at limited carrier’s risk / Held: yes / Parties did not sign any contract prior to collection / Is liability limited to $2,000 for all damage / Held: yes / Damaged goods were all on one pallet / Contracting carrier can only be liable for S2,000 per unit of goods / Unit is whole pallet / Clai...

  5. SN & TN v B Ltd [2021] NZDT 1621 (17 December 2021) [PDF, 223 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicants bought travel insurance / Applicants decided to cancel trip on advice of doctors / Applicant claimed for non-refundable portion of trip / Respondent declined claim because of a pre-existing medical condition that had not been declared / Held: Respondent incorrectly applied the definition of a pre-existing claim / Applicant was not aware and could not have been aware she had the medical condition / Had not been investigated or treated for the condition prior to the policy purchase / Applicants entitled to $25,261.40 under the insurance policy / Applicants entitled to $2,000.00 for breaches under the Consumer Guarantees Act and ongoing stress and inconvenience / Respondent did not deal with claim with reasonable care and skill and did not deal with it within a reasonable time / Applicants entitled to refund of the cost of the services of $1,092.00 / Respondent to pay Applicants $28,353.40 in total

  6. QB v OL [2021] NZDT 1563 (7 December 2021) [PDF, 164 KB]

    Sale and purchase of land / Applicant agreed to sell property to Respondent / Title not issued by deadline / Agreement extended several times before settlement / Purchasers later resold property / Applicant sought contribution for sealing costs for access road and survey costs / Held: no express or implied responsibility in the original agreement to allow claim to succeed / No inferred acceptance from text exchange / Risk not to secure agreement in writing and left to prove acceptance on appearances / Insufficient evidence to show acceptance of proposal / Claim dismissed.

  7. DQ Ltd v SM Ltd [2022] NZDT 6 (18 November 2021) [PDF, 199 KB]

    Applicant awarded $9,169.84 in previous Tribunal decision / Applicant’s application in previous hearing allowed for set-off of $1,315.99 for title search fees / previous decision did not specifically address set-off / Respondent, without prior notice to Applicant, issued statutory demand on Applicant claiming payment of title search fees / Applicant paid Respondent $1,315.99 / Applicant seeks return of $1,315.99 paid under statutory demand issued by Respondent / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,335.44 for amount paid under statutory demand plus interest / given previous Tribunal order does not exclude consideration of set-off, it was intended as full and final determination of all matters raised in the application as filed / Respondent unreasonable to take actions it did / Claim allowed.

  8. UC & FC v GM [2021] NZDT 1645 (15 November 2021) [PDF, 221 KB]

    Law of contract / Agreement to a boundary realignment between neighbours / Clause stated that if Applicants did not receive notice of new titles withing 300 days then Respondents to pay $10,0000 in liquidated damages / Applicants claim to have received notice 847 days after date of agreement / Applicants claiming $10,310.25 in liquidated damages plus interest / Whether clause is a penalty clause and therefore unenforceable / Held: on the balance of probabilities it was a penalty clause / No attempt to scale the consequences to the length of the delay / Clause did not take into account any unforeseen situations / Clause unenforceable / Claim dismissed

  9. XG v NG & BQ [2021] NZDT 1642 (3 November 2021) [PDF, 250 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased property from Respondents / Applicant had building inspection completed before purchase but did not receive report before offer went unconditional / Applicant received correspondence from building company regarding work needed on foundations / Applicant claims recovery of cost  to rectify uneven floors / Respondents claim Applicant had done due diligence and knew about settlement issue / Whether defect in property at time sold to Applicant / If so, should defect have been disclosed to prospective buyers / Whether Applicant aware of need for work on foundations before agreement to purchase property / Whether s 35 of CCLA applies / Whether any betterment in claim for $30,000.00 / Held: at time of sale and purchase there was a defect regarding the foundation of property / Held: requirement for Respondents to disclose foundation of house defective / Held: more likely than not Applicant not aware of defect before...

  10. EF & QF v JD & QN [2021] NZDT 1602 (29 October 2021) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract / Breach / Applicants purchased property from Respondents / Sale included deed that assigned vendor’s remaining rights in insurance claims for earthquake damage to purchaser / Deed included three claims with EQC for damage and parties agreed there was a further claim for the Kaikoura earthquake not listed / Applicants claim they were unaware of Kaikoura earthquake damage claim and were misled into thinking no damage was caused / Whether term of agreement that damage caused by Kaikoura earthquake resolved / If so, what loss can EF and QF prove incurred and are entitled to be compensated for / Held: contract does not include an exhaustive list of all claims and does not specify that all earthquake damage had been repaired / Applicants have not proven that they purchased house on representation that all earthquake repairs were performed / Claim dismissed

  11. BC v TG [2021] NZDT 1636 (13 October 2021) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent intended to turn right into driveway as he did so Applicant began to overtake and vehicles collided / Applicant stated Respondent did not indicate / Applicant claimed $250.00 for his insurance excess for car repairs / Whether Respondent was responsible for collision / If so, whether costs were reasonable / Held: not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Parties have differing recollections of events / Not proven on balance of probabilities that Respondent failed to indicate / Not reasonable for Respondent to have kept constant watch on car behind him whilst making turn / Not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Claim dismissed.

  12. P Ltd v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1643 (8 October 2021) [PDF, 145 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted with Respondent to supply and fit tyres, rims and lift kit on Respondent’s vehicle / Applicant claims $4,375.00 for balance of unpaid invoice and collection costs / Respondent counter-claims $5,000.00 for illegal work and recovery cost of original rims and tyres / What were terms of contract and did Respondent breach by failure to pay or did Applicant breach by failure to return original equipment / Was work carried out with reasonable care and skill and was outcome fit for purpose / What remedy, if any, available / Held: parties agreed Respondent would pay $9,890.00 and agreement was payment on delivery / Nothing in agreement about collection costs / Agreement included Plaintiff retaining original equipment / Held: no breach of standard of reasonable fitness for purpose or failure to exercise reasonable care and skill / Held: remedy for breach is to place affected party in position would have been in if contract performed / Claim allowed, counter-claim ...

  13. SJ & NY v XT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1644 (6 October 2021) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent relocated water meter on Applicants rental property, a leak developed / Respondent agreed to fix leak and provide leak allowance for lost water / Applicants reported further leak, Respondent carried out repairs / Respondent provided further leak allowances and partially paid for water use invoices and charged Applicants for remaining cost / Applicants claim amount charged for estimated water usage excessive / Applicants claim $5,000 for declaration of non-liability on outstanding invoice of $1,056.80 plus damages for distress and time spent resolving matter / Held: Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $289.80 / Respondent overestimated usage / Insufficient evidence of quantifiable loss to award damages / Claim allowed

  14. JU Ltd v U Ltd [2021] NZDT 1633 (6 October 2021) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Insurance / Applicant owned rental property insured by Respondent / Insurance policy included accidental and malicious damage by tenants / When tenants moved out Applicant discovered damage to many areas of property / Applicant made insurance claim, accepted by Respondent / Respondent applied multiple excesses on the basis that damage was result of multiple events / Applicant argued damage should be treated as a single event, only one excess should be applied / Applicant claimed sum of $4,031,31 for cost of repairing damage, less the sum of one excess / Whether damage should be treated as a single event or multiple events under the policy / Held: damage was varied, found to have been caused by multiple events / Respondent entitled to charge multiple excesses / Respondent charged excesses on a room by room basis / Respondent’s calculations accepted / Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant $2,111.79 / Claim granted in part.

  15. SA v TD & I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1646 (4 October 2021) [PDF, 139 KB]

    Land Transport (Road User) Rules / Car collision / Applicant claimed costs to repair vehicle /  Whether Respondent caused the collision / Whether Applicant contributed to the collision / Whether Respondent's employer vicariously liable / Held: Respondent caused the collision / Respondent drove in 50km/h zone at around 80km/h / Should not have attempted to pass if he could not do so safely / Applicant contributed to collision by speeding up when Respondent began to pass / Respondent has 65% liability and Applicant 35% / Respondent's employer vicariously liable as Respondent was driving to carry out work at a job site / Respondent and Respondent's employer to pay 65% of the claimed $4,732.25 which is $3,075.96 / Claim granted.

  16. KC v UD [2021] NZDT 1556 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 158 KB]

    Contract / Agreement to purchase caravan / Respondent paid deposit of $3000.00 / Respondent pulled out of deal before full purchase price paid / Applicant sought order from the Tribunal that he was not liable to repay the deposit / Held: contract was condictional on Respondent having finance approced / Finance not approved / Sale of caravan did not become unconditional / Nothing in writing to say deposit was non-refundable / No loss suffered by Applicant / Applicant not entitled to retain deposit / Claim dismissed, Applicant to pay Respondent $3000.00 deposit.

  17. BI v OX [2021] NZDT 1543 (17 September 2021) [PDF, 325 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Induced by misrepresentation to enter in contract / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Applicant asked before the purchase of the car of overheating issue / Respondent advised no issues of overheating / Car overheated / Applicant claims Respondent misrepresented car / Applicant claims damages / Held: Respondent did misrepresent car / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,869.75 in damages / Claim upheld

  18. US Ltd v NH [2021] NZDT 1545 (16 September 2021) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install steel roof / Respondent paid 50% deposit followed by later 25% payment totalling $8,000.00 / Applicant installed incorrect roofing material /  Applicant contracted scaffolders who damaged Respondent’s carport roof / Applicant claims $2,600.00 from Respondent for unpaid balance / Respondent counter-claims $8,000.00 for failure to install correct roofing material / Held: Applicant to refund Respondent $8,000.00 / Roofing not completed to adequate standard /  Applicant failed to adequately remedy issue / Applicant’s claim dismissed

  19. KC & LQ v UT & LT [2021] NZDT 1551 (9 September 2021) [PDF, 137 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants and Respondents own neighbouring properties / Applicants claimed fence between properties not adequate and served Respondents with a notice under the Fencing Act (the Act) asking Respondents to replace fence and pay cost / Respondents served cross notice under the Act stating fence was adequate and did not need replacing / Respondents stated if it did they should only be liable for 50 percent of cost of replacement / Whether the existing fence adequate in terms of the Act / If not, what were reasonable costs for replacement / Whether Respondents damaged the fence and were liable to pay full replacement cost / Held: fence not adequate in terms of the Act / reasonable costs to replace fence are $7,495.00 / condition of fence cannot said to have been caused by Respondents / per s 9 of the Act, each party liable for 50 percent of cost of replacement / Respondent ordered to pay $3,747.50 to Applicant / claim allowed

  20. NU v KD Ltd & QJ Ltd & GE Ltd [2021] NZDT 1550 (9 September 2021) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Rejection of goods / Damages / Applicant purchased car from Respondent in January 2019 / Mechanical breakdown insurance was taken out in relation to the car with the Second Respondent / In March 2020 the car’s engine was replaced by the Third Respondent / Applicant states replacement engine has failed and claims refund of purchase price and repair costs / Held: Applicant not entitled to reject car and receive refund from Respondent / Lost right to reject goods as not done within reasonable time per s 20 CGA / Held: Applicant entitled to damages of $1844.12 from Respondent / Car not of acceptable quality per s 18 CGA / Claim allowed in part / Claim against Second and Third Respondents dismissed

  21. N Ltd v K Ltd [2021] NZDT 1559 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Fair Trading Act 1987 / Applicant purchased 14 seater van from Respondent / Upon delivery discovered van only certified to carry 13 people / Respondent seeking $10,000 for misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct / Held: misrepresentation not found / Seats and certification correctly advertised / Misleading conduct found / Van only certified for 12 adults in a fare-paying capacity / Both parties aware that van was to be used for fare-paying passengers / Respondent to pay applicant $2,190.00 / claim allowed

  22. UI v DW Ltd [2021] NZDT 1528 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 245 KB]

    Contract / Veterinarian services / Applicant presented dog to Second Respondent at the First Respondent’s vet clinic for treatment / Dog was seriously ill and its condition deteriorated / Applicant took dog to alternative veterinarian for treatment / Agreement made that Applicant would pay reduced amount to First Respondent / First Respondent later sent another invoice for $671.00 to Applicant / Applicant sought compensation of $9,357.98 for alternative veterinarian bill and other costs / Whether the Second Respondent was personally liable under the contract for treatment of the dog / Whether the treatment of the dog was carried out with reasonable care and skill / What loss had the Applicant suffered / Held: contract for care and treatment of the dog was with the First Respondent, not the Second Respondent personally / Evidence suggested that treatment of the dog was not carried out with reasonable care and skill, particularly treatment provided by the Second Respondent / Applicant sh...

  23. UN v DE Ltd [2021] NZDT 1546 (2 September 2021) [PDF, 211 KB]

    Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee / Reasonable care and skill / Applicant entered a building contract with Respondent / Respondent hired subcontractor to pour coloured concrete driveway and patio for Applicant / Applicant noticed cracks in patio surface and claims refund of cost of patio from Respondent / Whether Respondent failed to use reasonable care and skill, whether Respondent has failed to meet prescribed Building Code Standard within 6-8 hours after initial hardening and, if no cause proven, can inference be drawn from the fact that crack occurred / Held: no proven failure of competency or reasonable care and skill on part of Respondent / Held: timing of cuts meets the Building Code’s expectations, no breach of s 362I(1)(a)(i) / Held: standard allowing tolerance for cracks in concrete sufficient explanation as to why inference cannot be drawn that crack would not have occurred without negligence / Claim dismissed.

  24. KN v ID Inc [2021] NZDT 1527 (13 August 2021) [PDF, 216 KB]

    Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant’s car was parked near a hockey stadium / Ball from the turf damaged the applicant’s car / Applicant claimed $1475.00 for damage to his car / Whether the respondents owed a duty of care / What duty was breached / If so, whether the breach caused damage and was foreseeable / What was the reasonable costs of repairing the damage / Held: duty of care for the occupier of the turf to take reasonable care to prevent harm resulting from their activities on the turf/ Applicant was a hockey player and was accustomed to how the turf was used / Applicant failed to discharge onus of proof that there had been a breach of duty of care by the respondents / No breach of duty of care found / claim dismissed.

  25. TC v F Ltd LM [2021] NZDT 1590 (12 August 2021) [PDF, 184 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant purchased used vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle represented as having current Warrant of Fitness (WOF) / Noticed extensive rust on the floor and other places / Alleged misrepresentation by Respondent / Respondent claimed no knowledge of the rust / Respondent claimed they are not responsible for alleged failures of business who issued WOF / Held: vehicle not misrepresented as rust was not "visible rust" / Held: Respondent not responsible for invalid WOF / No evidence that Respondent knew or ought to have known the issuing authority for the WOF was unreliable / Claim dismissed