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

347 items matching your search terms

  1. DF Ltd v TS Ltd [2021] NZDT 1315 (21 April 2021) [PDF, 233 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Breach of contract / Applicant entered a contract with Respondent to convert Respondent’s truck chassis and attach a tank / Respondent had an engineer send an initial sketch and information to Applicant regarding the truck conversion / Applicant proceeded with conversion of the truck based on initial information from Respondent’s engineer which was not complete or final / Applicant claims invoices for $13,827.15 rendered for services have not been paid / Applicant claims work was not carried out in accordance with the engineer’s instructions and it has incurred cost to rectify and complete work / Held: Applicant breached contract by not following the engineer’s instructions and measurements to carry out the work / Held: breach entitled Respondent to cancel the contract / Held: Applicant entitled to be paid for work performed prior to cancellation of contract / Respondent ordered to pay $6,187.15 to Applicant.

  2. RK v KS [2021] NZDT 1349 (20 April 2021) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a jetski from Respondent / Applicant did not test run jetski prior to purchase / Applicant took jetski out on the water after sale and found it was faulty / Applicant advised fault would have existed at point of sale / Applicant advised fault due to lack of regular servicing / Applicant sought refund of $6,000.00 purchase price / Whether misrepresentation made in sale of jetski / Whether Applicant was entitled to sum claimed / Held: Respondent provided limited representations relating to the condition of the jetski / Respondent disclosed lack of use and servicing of the jetski / No misrepresentation made in the sale / No entitlement for damages for faulty jetski / Claim dismissed

  3. RC v LUD Group Ltd [2021] NZDT 1380 (20 April 2021) [PDF, 215 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 /  Applicant purchased a tour of North America from Respondent / Cost of tour was $21,523.70 / Applicant advised tour would not go ahead due to Covid pandemic / Respondent offered Applicant two partial refunds which were rejected / Applicant claimed full tour price from Respondent / Whether clauses in the contract intended to have effect in a worldwide pandemic / Whether expenses were incurred by Respondent when performing the contract / Whether Respondent misled or deceived the Applicant / Held: no cancellation or alteration contract terms which were intended to have effect in circumstances of a worldwide pandemic / There was an insurance agreement term which was intended to have effect in these circumstances / Applicant was able to recover cost of the tour less amount of Respondent’s expenses / Respondent did not mislead or deceive Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $19,523.70.

  4. TX v OI [2021] NZDT 1351 (19 April 2021) [PDF, 211 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent / Car advertised as reliable and running well / Car overheated from day of sale / Applicant advised engine would need to be replaced / Applicant sought a refund of the $10,000.00 purchase price from Respondent / Whether misrepresentation made in sale of vehicle / Whether Applicant was entitled to sum claimed / Held: Overheating problem arose day of purchase / More likely than not there was latent defect in the car / Statements that car was reliable, mechanically sound and went well were untrue statements / Did not matter that statements were made on behalf of a party to a contract / An innocent misrepresentation is still a misrepresentation / Costs not proven / Damages are limited to cost of replacement engine / Respondent ordered to pay $7,100.00 to Applicant by specified date / Claim allowed.

  5. ABC Trust v G Ltd [2021] NZDT 1307 (16 April 2021) [PDF, 247 KB]

    Civil procedure / ss 14 and 15 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicants contracted with Respondent for harvesting of two blocks of trees / Applicants lodged claim against Respondent in the Disputes Tribunal for loss of value in trees left to deteriorate on site / Applicants lodged second claim against Respondent in the Dispute Tribunal in relation to same contract for refund for construction of road / Held: s 15 applies where a cause of action is divided “for the purpose” of bringing a claim within the Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction / prior and current proceedings flow from the same set of circumstances and as a result encompass the same cause of action / Trustees divided cause of action into 2 or more claims in contravention of s 15 / claim struck out.

  6. HT v IU [2021] NZDT 1329 (13 April 2021) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant provided quote of $16,204.00 to Respondent for painting her house / Applicant’s quote was accepted by the Respondent / Respondent paid Applicant $4,000.00 for the contracted painting work / Applicant seeks an order for the balance owing to him / Respondent claims quote is excessive, unfair and unreasonable / Held: contract price of $16,204.00 is unconscionable / Held: Tribunal has power to vary contract in this situation / Held: twice the average price is the extent of the respondent’s liability to the applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $5,500.00 to the Applicant.

  7. IS & JS v KC [2021] NZDT 1308 (9 April 2021) [PDF, 219 KB]

    Licences / Licence to Occupy / Applicants had a Licence to Occupy bach on Respondents land / Applicants wanted to sell Licence to third party / Respondents approved on basis that they took the profit on the sale / Applicants claim return of $20,000 less $50 legal costs / Held: no express provision in Licence requiring Applicants to pay Respondents any part of the sum they receive / Outcome: Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $19,950 in three annual payments of $5,000 and one of $4,950.

  8. PC v OR [2021] NZDT 1341 (8 April 2021) [PDF, 232 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Applicant enquired with Respondents about installation of hair extensions / Respondents provided Applicant with time estimate for installation and outcome / Applicant paid Respondents $650.00 to have hair extensions attached / Applicant claimed extensions were not properly installed and took longer than indicated by Respondents / Applicant claims $1,999.00 for reinstallation, travel and damages for a burn to her scalp, loss of hair and embarrassment / Breach of reasonable care and skill in failing to properly outline time for service and possibility would not work well / Other damages were not established / Claim allowed in part / Second Respondent to pay Applicant $650.00 / Claim against First Respondent dismissed

  9. LQ & SC Ltd v DD [2021] NZDT 1344 (31 March 2021) [PDF, 214 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased steam boiler from respondent / Applicant seeking compensation for costs and transportation of boiler / Boiler was misrepresented as steam boiler as purchased product was a water heater / Held: Both parties had little knowledge of boilers and were not able to tell from appearance the boiler was not a steam boiler / Both parties entered the contract in the mistaken belief the boiler was a steam boiler / Contract varied and claim granted in part / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,874.07

  10. TC & AK v BH & TH [2021] NZDT 1306 (25 March 2021) [PDF, 250 KB]

    Contract / Applicants entered share milking contract with Respondents as trustees of ABC trust / Respondents terminated contract / Final milk contract payment made to trustees in place of Applicants / Applicants claimed $16,456.38 plus GST and interest in relation to final milk contract payment and filing fee / Held: contract stipulates that on termination Applicants receive Contract Payment for any unpaid milk contract payment without deduction or withholding any amount and Trustees have no right to set off in relation to payment / Applicants entitled to Contractor Payment which Respondents withheld / Trustees acted in breach of contract by not paying final Contractor Payment to the Applicants / Trustees not entitled to deduct costs claimed from the final Contractor Payment / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $17,336.99 to the Applicants

  11. X Ltd v TE [2021] NZDT 1350 (17 March 2021) [PDF, 171 KB]

    Consumer rights / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Respondent purchased digital surveillance system from Applicant / Respondent has not paid for system / System sends false alerts / Intruder alerts unable to be turned on and off when camera system is turned on and off / Applicant claims payment for system / Respondent counterclaims seeking declaration that he is not liable and is entitled to reject system / Held: system not sufficiently free from defects / Respondent made functionality he sought clear and system not reasonably fit for this purpose / Applicant went to considerable lengths to rectify system / Respondent made clear he wanted to cancel arrangement in February 2020, purchase has been cancelled since then / Respondent has received little marginal benefit from use of system since cancellation / Respondent filed claim in timely manner / Little or no depreciation in hard drive from delay / Outcome: Respondent to keep cameras purchased with system to mitigate his loss / Respondent...

  12. KC v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1352 (12 March 2021) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Contract / Education and Training Act 2020 / Applicant signed up for course and subsequently cancelled / Applicant claimed that Respondent failed to notify him that no refund could be given if a cancellation was within 14 days of course commencement / s 354 and 357 Education and Training Act 2020 / Respondent unaware of its obligation under the Act / No evidence that cancellation caused any loss to Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to full refund of $2,200

  13. NC v MD [2021] NZDT 1348 (12 March 2021) [PDF, 208 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent approached Applicant about removing plants on the boundary of their properties / No fence to delineate boundary / Applicant had no objections to proposed work as claimed work was all on Respondent’s side / Respondent’s contractors removed a mature tree from Respondent’s property / Respondent claimed $1500.00 for the tree / Held: Respondent gave inadequate instructions and supervision to her contractors that amounted to negligence / Respondent liable to pay $665.00 for new tree and compensation / Claim granted.

  14. DC v JBD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1379 (11 March 2021) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Breach of contract / Applicant arranged to sell all of its paintings  through the Respondent / Applicants arranged for unsold paintings to be uplifted from Respondent’s premises to a gallery / Applicants claimed one of the paintings went missing / Applicants claimed for original price of the painting / Whether the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Whether there was a contract that the painting would be insured by the Respondent on its premises / Whether the Respondent has breached its responsibility as a bailee to take reasonable care of the painting / Whether Applicants were entitled to compensation for the painting / Held: applicants did not prove it was more likely than not that the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Honest belief something was done not the same thing as whether it was actually done / Claim dismissed

  15. NN v TD [2021] NZDT 1343 (11 March 2021) [PDF, 178 KB]

    Contract / Agreement to purchase a puppy / Applicant paid $500.00 deposit to Respondent / Respondent withdrew offer for puppy / Respondent claimed deposit was non-refundable / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 for deposit and costs associated with travelling to visit the puppy and finding another / No breach of contract / Respondent cannot rely on contractual terms of a contract she has cancelled / Respondent was able to recover any losses by selling puppy to another person / Respondent must return deposit to Applicant / Other costs or losses not recoverable / Claim allowed in part / Respondent to pay Applicant $500.00.

  16. QN Ltd v SL [2020] NZDT 1337 (5 March 2020) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Contract / Quasi-contract / Applicant acted for Respondent seeking improved compensation from EQC for damage to Respondent’s property / Respondent obtained further compensation of $120,000 from EQC / Applicant claimed $3,200 as legal costs /Applicant claimed it was implied term of contract with Respondent that Respondent would pay legal costs / Held: Legal costs not implied term of contract between parties / Applicant does not have a contractual right to the $3,200 claimed based on express statements to Respondent that litigation costs would be met by Applicant / Tribunal examined whether it would be unjust for Respondent to retain benefit of compensation at Respondent’s expense / Applicant claimed legal costs were included in compensation but were unable to provide express explanation or breakdown of compensation from EQC showing costs included in compensation /  Held: Applicant not entitled to amount sought in absence of express explanation or breakdown from EQC regarding costs / Cla...

  17. L Family Trust Limited v KM [2021] NZDT 1319 (24 February 2021) [PDF, 199 KB]

    Cross-lease / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours in a cross-lease property made up of one building divided into two flats / Terms of the cross-lease require each unit to pay half the cost of repairs and maintenance of the building, includingthe roof / Applicant considers Respondent has not kept up responsibilities under terms of cross-lease / Applicant claims Respondent’s roof needs to be repaired and repainted, exterior walls of flat repainted to original colour and shared fence to be painted / Held: terms of cross-lease require roof to be repaired and repainted / Held: requirement of “high standard” in terms of cross-lease do not apply to fence, no obligation on Respondent to contribute to painting it / Respondent entitled to paint exterior walls of their flat / Respondent ordered to repair roof and arrange painting with Applicant / Respondent to also repaint small shared external wall area.

  18. NA v OI [2021] NZDT 1313 (24 February 2021) [PDF, 255 KB]

    Nuisance / Applicant and Respondent own adjoining properties / On three occasions trees on Respondent’s property fell and caused damage to Applicant’s property / Logs piled on Respondent’s property rolled and caused damage to a wall of Applicant’s house / Applicant claimed $3964.42 from Respondent / Held: trees were kept in a dangerous state, after two trees fell this state was known to Respondent and the potential for a further tree to fall was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent had no knowledge of work resulting in the logs being piled and cannot be said to have had any control them / Claim relating to falling trees allowed, respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,066.59 / Claim relating to rolling logs dismissed.

  19. EP v XN [2021] NZDT 1302 (17 February 2021) [PDF, 158 KB]

    Duty of care / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Dog Control Act 1996 / Respondent's dogs attacked and killed six of Applicant's sheep / Applicant claims value of the lost sheep and treatment costs associated with injuries / Held: as owner Respondent has a duty of care to ensure dogs are under proper control and do not roam / Respondent has breached this duty of care by not ensuring their dogs remained chained up when unattended / Successful claim.

  20. BD and NQ v R Co Ltd [2021] NZDT 1354 (12 February 2021) [PDF, 169 KB]

    Conveyancing / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Duty of reasonable care and skill / Applicant engaged Respondent to provide conveyancing services for a property purchase / Applicant claims losses related to delay in moving into the property due to advice of Respondent / Respondent counter claims for time spent on post settlement matters and Tribunal attendance / Held: advice to Applicant regarding vendor having 7 days to take care of issues with property amounts to a failure of reasonable care and skill / Advice regarding 7 day period was inaccurate / Respondent not settling before 4pm amounts to failure of reasonable care and skill leading to losses for Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $393.00 to Applicant

  21. QI v PH & DN [2021] NZDT 1300 (10 February 2021) [PDF, 227 KB]

    Property / cross lease / Fencing Act 1978 / fence between exclusive area and common area / entitlement to park in common area / enforcement of requirement not to park in the common area / claim for compensation / Held: entitled to have a fence as no term in the lease preventing this / respondents not entitled to park in the common area / Tribunal not able to make order preventing long term parking / claim for compensation dismissed as not supported by evidence

  22. E v T [2021] NZDT 1310 (28 January 2021) [PDF, 226 KB]

    Consumer / Applicant purchased a new build from Respondent's company with faulty central heating system / Company now removed from Register / Applicant claims $27,100.30 in repair and legal costs / Held: Applicant not able to seek redress from company as has been removed from Register by Respondent / Applicant can claim against Respondent personally / Claim is within Dispute Tribunal jurisdiction / Applicant was a consumer and law recognises imbalances between consumer and business in other areas of law / Applicant has legitimate breach of contract claim against company / Respondent had knowledge of failure when company removed from Register / Applicant entitled to claim repair costs / Breach of warranty / Breach of statutory guarantee / Legal costs largely not recoverable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,047.80.

  23. MD v O Ltd [2021] NZDT 1347 (27 January 2021) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sent a computer using a courier service / Respondent said the postal service was under a contract with another party / Following collection and before the item arrived at intended destination a redirection request was made / Computer never arrived at first destination or redirected address / Applicant unable to collect computer from depot due to Covid 19 restrictions /  Computer sent to redirected address but never arrived / Respondent said no ability to locate computer due to nature of contract with other party / Applicant claimed never given an option to pay for posting once the parcel was located at the depot or told there was anything irregular with tracking of the package / Applicant claimed $635.00 for costs of computer plus filing fee / No contract between parties and no liability at law from Respondent to Applicant for loss of computer / Applicant took a risk sending the parcel / Claim dismissed.

  24. JA v KQ & BT [2021] NZDT 1355 (20 January 2021) [PDF, 190 KB]

    Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant invested money in a terms deposit with a company where Respondents were directors / Company went into receivership then liquidation / Applicant claims employee’s of company engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Applicant claims directors should be respondible for the actions of their company and their employees under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act / Applicant did not have personal dealings with Respondents and claim is not caught under s 43 / No general liability on directors for actions or conduct of their company / Claim dismissed

  25. ET Ltd v District Council [2021] NZDT 1317 (20 January 2021) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Contract / breach of contract / Applicant had a licence to occupy a site for a cart / Applicant made enquiries to Respondent to move cart to a second site / Applicant was told by Respondent the business could move to the new site / Respondent paused the move of the business formally sought expressions of interest / Applicant did not submit expression of interest as felt site was already allocated to her business / licence to occupy site was issued to another person based on expression of interest / Applicant claimed $15,000 (now $30,000 from Respondent for loss of income / Respondent claimed no contract had been formed with Applicant / if a contract had been formed Respondent disputes amount of claim due to term of licensing period, no expression of interest by Applicant, and accuracy of financial forecast submitted by Applicant / Held: contract formed between Applicant and Respondent / Held: Respondent repudiated contract, Applicant entitled to cancel contract and seek relief / Claim ...