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

488 items matching your search terms

  1. 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...

  2. 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.

  3. SQ v MN Inc [2021] NZDT 1472 (8 August 2021) [PDF, 189 KB]

    Conversion / Animal Welfare Act 1999 / Damages / Applicant’s cat went missing / Cat was found, passed on to Respondent, and adopted by a new family from Respondent / Respondent approached adoptive family to return cat, they refused / Applicant seeks an order for return of cat / Held: Respondent liable to Applicant for conversion of cat / Section 141 of the AWA does not apply to Respondent as they do not qualify as an approved organisation under the Act / Respondent did not take reasonable steps to find owner / Third party has possession of cat / Applicant did not wish to pursue third person, did not want damages and did not want another cat / Claim dismissed

  4. SM v CT [2020] NZDT 1432 (4 August 2020) [PDF, 223 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Applicant purchased a vehicle from the Respondent for $3,400.00 / Respondent had purchased the vehicle from a friend / A finance company had a security interest registered over the vehicle / Finance company repossessed the vehicle as money was still owing / Respondent claimed he did not know money was owing when he purchased the vehicle / Applicant claiming $4,00.00 from Respondent / Whether the Respondent breached the contract of sale with the Applicant / What remedy was the Applicant entitled to / Held: Implied condition and warranties had been breached / Respondent did not have the right to sell the vehicle to the Applicant whether he knew there was a security interest or not / Applicant did not enjoy quiet possession of the vehicle / Applicant was entitled to damages for the breach of a warranty / Measure of damages was the estimated loss resulting from the breach / Damage was the price the Applicant paid to the Respondent / Applica...

  5. CO Ltd v GM Ltd [2019] NZDT 1478 (26 July 2019) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Contract / Section 144 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant supplied Respondent stock / Respondent only sold small portion of stock and wished to return remaining stock in exchange for credit / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 towards invoices / Respondent counterclaimed $3,340.00 for storage costs / Held: Applicant not obligated to accept the goods return / Respondent must make payment for the goods in accordance with the contract / Applicant limits claim in accordance with Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claim allowed.

  6. OK Ltd v HO Ltd & BG [2020] NZDT 1519 (21 July 2020) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Payment / Applicants entered into contract with company to do plumbing work for First Respondent / Work halted as First Respondent could not pay invoices / After Applicant met with Second Respondent work continued / Two further invoices issued and not paid / Applicant claims Second Respondent said he would personally pay for work / Applicant claims $6,002.99 from Second Respondent / Second Respondent claims he was facilitator and payments he made were paid as loan to First Respondent / Held: Second Respondent had personally paid company for previous work and said he would pay for work to finish job / Second Respondent did not say he was acting as agent for First Respondent / Second Respondent liable for payments on basis he promised to personally pay / Claim allowed except for costs and claimed interest / Discretionary interest granted, calculated in accordance with Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,193.51.

  7. ME & NN v QU Ltd [2021] NZDT 1494 (5 May 2021) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased package tour from Respondent / Tour cancelled due to COVID19 / Applicants received refund of all money paid except for $4,000 for part of the package / Respondent states the $4,000 is held in future credits but Applicants unable to use credits due COVID19 travel risks, age and health / Applicants claim refund of $4,000 / Held: Respondents entered into direct contract with Applicants on terms specified in booking form and tour brochure / The contract was frustrated / When a contract is frustrated, sums already paid are recoverable / Claim allowed, Respondents must refund the entire balance of $4,000 to Applicants

  8. WQ Ltd v X Ltd & CG ta UQ [2021] NZDT 1429 (3 May 2021) [PDF, 218 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased vehicle for business being sold by Second Respondent on behalf of First Respondent / Rust on vehicle hidden by vinyl covering on roof at time of sale / Applicant claims compensation from Respondents / Held: reasonable consumer would consider rust minor defect in vehicle of that age / Held: Applicant consumer under CGA / Business use does not exclude Applicant from being a consumer / Second Respondent claims not liable as supplier as selling on behalf / Held: Second Respondent supplier under s 2(1) of the CGA / Supplier includes agent / Supplier to be liable for repairs / First and Second Respondent claim not liable as not RMVTs / CGA not limited to RMVTs / Held: First and Second Respondent could be held liable under the CGA / Both party to sale / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $828.00 to Applicant

  9. DX v I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1419 (28 April 2021) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Contract / Applicant booked service for a car / Applicant requested invoice sent to owner of car / Question of whether applicant was liable for debt or acting as agent for the owner / Held that applicant was acting as an undisclosed agent / Contract not formed when applicant phoned to book the service / Evidence that owner of the car accepted the quote when phone was passed to him to by the applicant / Held: applicant’s claim for non-liability upheld

  10. NN Ltd v FS [2021] NZDT 1403 (28 April 2021) [PDF, 231 KB]

    Contract / GST / Costs / Respondent engaged Applicant through Barrister to complete a valuation for insurance purposes / Applicant made error in billing Respondent leaving balance owing / Applicant sought payment from Respondent of outstanding amount / Respondent claimed Applicant stated balance owed would be written off / Alternatively Respondent did not have to pay because Respondent was GST exempt / Held: Respondent bound through barrister for all work done by Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to claim for missed invoice / Held: Respondent not exempt from paying GST / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $2051.28 to Applicant

  11. MN Ltd v QN & EN [2021] NZDT 1440 (27 April 2021) [PDF, 256 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of services completed within a reasonable time and reasonable price / Guarantee of services carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent hired Applicant to carry out landscaping works around their pool / Agreement was varied to include additional work / Respondents were unhappy with time and cost to carry out the work / Respondents ended agreement and did not pay full sum invoiced by Applicant / Applicant claims $25,533.74 in relation to unpaid invoices / Respondents counterclaim $8,000 in relation to the service carried out and costs of reinstatement / Held: guarantees under ss 30 and 31 of the CGA relating to services completed in a reasonable time and at a reasonable cost do not apply / Contract determined end date for work and cost estimate for work / Held: service not carried out with reasonable care and skill per guarantee in s 28 of the CGA / Failure to property document project in writing or pictures relating to des...

  12. KQ & WQ v EN & MN [2021] NZDT 1439 (27 April 2021) [PDF, 161 KB]

    Contract / Quasi-contract  / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Equitable jurisdiction / Entitlement to relief / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to purchase a section subject to subdivision / Agreement included a sunset clause / Prior to settlement Applicant cleared area of trees on property / Respondents cancelled contract based on sunset clause / Applicants claimed $4,140 from Respondents in relation to tree removal / Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over dispute as it concerned contract not recovery of an interest in land or question of title to land / Held: Applicants not entitled to reimbursement under contract / Agreement between parties did not provide for oral variations or reimbursement for acts taken in reliance of contract / Quasi-contract does not apply, no remedy available to Applicants under this claim / Respondents not unduly enriched by the felling of the trees / Applicants cannot claim relief under an equitable jurisdiction in the Disputes Tribunal / ...

  13. NB v UJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1498 (23 April 2021) [PDF, 187 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent poured concrete outside Applicant’s commercial car yard / concrete splashed on Applicant’s cars damaging paint / Respondent paid $562.50 towards paint repair / Applicant claims Respondent was negligent in pouring concrete / Applicant claims they were not contributorily negligent by not protecting cars on property / Applicant claims $9,420.00 for cost of repairing paintwork on car, depreciation on car and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent negligent in pouring concrete / Respondent did not take steps to limit potential for concrete to splash into neighbouring properties / Held: Applicant was not contributorily negligent / Applicant’s cars were on property / Respondent did not give adequate warning of potential concrete splashing / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,687.50 / Respondent only liable for cost of paint repair / Applicant could have avoided depreciation / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs / Respondent already paid $562.50 of $2,2...

  14. FD v CE [2021] NZDT 1395 (22 April 2021) [PDF, 192 KB]

    Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties shared an adjourning boundary / Respondents erected new fence and sought half the costs pursuant to a fencing notice / Applicants did not seek removal of fence / Applicants wanted the fence height reduced and a mirror installed / Whether valid fencing notice issued / Whether the fence should be lowered, or a mirror installed / Held: Notice issued by Respondents was not valid / Notice did not provide a costs estimate or specify the consequences of failure to work / Also notice would lapse if work did not take place within 90 days / Work took place after expiry of notice period / Tribunal has no power to order a mirror installed / Fence height permitted by Council so height reduction request could not be granted / Claims dismissed

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. PF Ltd v QI MI [2020] NZDT 1455 (19 April 2021) [PDF, 138 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased property from Respondents  / Applicant claims $30,000 for losses suffered due to problems with the property’s rangehood, gas regulator, and maintenance of windows and roof / Respondents deny any liability for loss suffered / Held: breach of clause 7.2 of the sale and purchase agreement that chattels delivered in reasonable working order / Rangehood was not in reasonable working order at settlement / Failure due to ongoing issue of build-up of grease in venting / Held: no breach of sale and purchase agreement clause 7.2 regarding the gas regulator / Regulator failed after settlement / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the maintenance of the house including windows / Evidence supplied at time of sale indicates property had been maintained / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the roof / Respondents did not make unqualified s...

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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.

  22. 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.

  23. 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

  24. EM & LM v KQ [2021] NZDT 1451 (7 April 2021) [PDF, 136 KB]

    Contract / Consumer protection / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent to paint their house, and made payments totalling $6,900.00 / Respondent only completed part of the work / Applicants claim Respondent misrepresented himself and breached the contract by not completing the work / Applicants claim $6,900.00, plus filing costs of $90.00 / Held: Respondent made a misleading representation by using the trademarked term ‘Master Painter’ on his business card / Respondent’s refusal to complete the work amounted to a repudiation of the contract / Applicants were entitled to cancel the contract (s 36 CCLA) and claim relief (s 43 CCLA) / Benefit Applicants received from the part performance of the contract totalled $4,807.07 / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $2,092.93.