You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2016 is the most recent year that selected Disputes Tribunal decisions were published. 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

234 items matching your search terms

  1. ER v UI Ltd [2017] NZDT 998 (16 February 2017) [PDF, 130 KB]

    Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled in course of study and paid fees to Respondent institution / Applicant withdrew from course 11 days after its commencement / Applicant claimed he could not understand lecturer and lecturer’s teaching style was poor / enrolment form provided for a refund of fees if withdrawal was within 8 days of course commencing or there were exceptional circumstances / Applicant claimed reason for withdrawing was exceptional and Respondent failed its guarantee as to service provided / Applicant claimed refund of fees / Held: no failure of guarantee / inadequate evidence to prove failure / Respondent provided service with reasonable care and skill and service was fit for purpose / circumstances not exceptional / claim dismissed

  2. EN & ENE v UM & UMU [2017] NZDT 997 (10 Febrary 2017) [PDF, 79 KB]

    Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant’s cows crossed over to Respondent’s neighbouring property / Applicant claimed fence in need of repair / Applicant issued fencing notice on Respondent / repairs carried out within days of notice / Applicant claimed half the cost of fence repairs / Held: Respondent not liable to pay for repairs / repairs carried out before notice period was up / fence not destroyed or damaged by sudden accident or other cause / claim dismissed

  3. DX v VC Ltd [2016] NZDT 938 (27 January 2017) [PDF, 140 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a couch from Respondent / wooden slats of couch broke / Applicant claimed full refund of couch / Held: damage was caused by failure of the wood and construction method and not by inconsistent use of couch by Applicant / couch not of acceptable quality / failure of goods not substantial / Applicant gave Respondent chance of remedy and Respondent refused to do so within reasonable time / Applicant could return the couch despite Respondent’s no return policy / damage caused by hidden defects so Applicant could only have known of faults when wood broke / Applicant not taken unreasonable length of time to ask for refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant full refund of $1,596.00 for couch and Applicant to return couch to Respondent at her cost. 

  4. EP v UK LTD & UKU LTD 2016 NZDT 893 (7 December 2016) [PDF, 137 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant delivered vehicle to the first Respondent for repair / first Respondent repaired vehicle and issued invoice to Applicant / Applicant paid part of invoice amount / first Respondent asked second Respondent to look at vehicle due to a further problem / second Respondent gave preliminary diagnosis but received no further instructions from first Respondent / vehicle delivered back to Applicant after some months / Applicant claimed original issue not resolved, vehicle not driveable and had cosmetic issues / Applicant claimed refund of amount paid, declaration of non-liability for balance of amount invoiced and compensation for tow, registration, insurance and repair costs / Held: Applicant did not have a contractual relationship with second Respondent / second Respondent not contractually liable to Applicant / first Respondent did not perform service with reasonable care and skill / first Respondent had Applicant’s car in their possession f...

  5. EO v UL LTD 2016 NZDT 979 (17 November 2016) [PDF, 139 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent’s digger bucket fell onto motorway / Applicant drove car into Respondent’s digger bucket / Applicant’s car damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent’s driver was negligent for not securing his load / Respondent claimed digger bucket had been stolen / Applicant claimed losses resulting from damage to car / Held: digger bucket fell off trailer driven by employee of Respondent / Respondent’s driver failed to adequately secure his load and was negligent / no contributory negligence on Applicant’s part / Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligent actions and liable to pay for Applicant’s reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5975.

  6. DN v VM [2016] NZDT 971 (19 October 2016) [PDF, 21 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased residential property from Respondent at auction / Applicant later found the Bon-Air Vulcan ducted gas heating system would not work / claims $9,731.32 for diagnosis and replacement of system / Held: gas heating system is not a chattel and therefore not covered by vendor warranties in Sale of Real Estate by Auction contract / gas heating system is a fixture that was part of the property sold and there is no requirement to provide fixtures in any particular condition / no basis in law for claim of compensation / claim dismissed

  7. DU & DUD v VF & Ors [2016] 956 (12 September 2016) [PDF, 135 KB]

    Contract / Civil Aviation Act 1990, s.91Z / Applicants booked return flights with Second Respondent and second flight was cancelled / Applicants booked a replacement flight with different airline / Second Respondent refunded fare of $343 / Applicants seek compensation of $1,999.99 for undue stress and extra costs incurred due to the cancellation and necessity to book another flight at a later date / Held: a carrier is liable for damages caused by delay unless delay made necessary by force majeure (unforeseeable circumstances) / mechanical breakdown is a foreseeable event / carrier not liable if they take all necessary steps to avoid damage or it is not possible to take those steps / Respondent delayed decision to cancel flight to a point where passengers would struggled to get alternative flights or accommodation / Respondent only operated one aeroplane and had no replacement / Respondent bears this as a business risk / Terms and Conditions purporting to limit Respondent’s liability ha...

  8. DV v VE [2016] NZDT 970 (22 August 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Negligence / motor vehicle collision / Applicant was riding motor scooter when a vehicle turned right across her path / Applicant claims losses from damage to scooter that was uneconomic to repair / Respondent denies being the driver of the car and knew nothing about the collision before receiving notice of proceedings / Held: on balance of probabilities, Respondent was the driver of the vehicle / Respondent failed to check that all lanes were clear before turning right / Respondent liable for reasonable losses / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,554 in replacement costs.

  9. EQ & EQQ v UJ Ltd & UJU [2016] NZDT 955 (17 August 2016) [PDF, 87 KB]

    Negligence / Applicants purchased house / Respondent painted house before it was sold to the Applicants / paint work deteriorated / Applicants repainted house / Applicants claimed cost of repainting house from Respondent / Held: Respondent did not owe Applicants a duty of care / Building Act 2004 does not cover painting / no physical damage or safety concerns / only original recipient of a service can enforce guarantee under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / insufficient proximity between painter and subsequent homeowners / claim dismissed

  10. ET & ETT v UG Ltd & UGG [2016] NZDT 962 (13 July 2016) [PDF, 147 KB]

    Contract / Applicants chartered a boat from Respondent / boat returned to port three days before end of charter period due to bad weather / Respondent offered Applicants a refund / Applicants disputed amount of refund / Respondent’s terms and conditions provided for a 50 per cent refund / Respondent claimed 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / Applicants interpreted refund to apply when all other conditions met / Applicants claimed refund of 50 per cent of pro-rata fee for unused three days / Held: Applicants entitled to a refund of 50 per cent of the remaining day’s charter fee / Respondent’s terms and conditions ambiguous / wording did not indicate that 50 per cent refund only applied to pre-departure cancellations / doctrine of contra proferentem favoured Applicants’ interpretation / all other conditions met / claim allowed

  11. EH Ltd v US [2016] NZDT 963 (18 July 2016) [PDF, 127 KB]

    Contract / Minor Contract Act 1969 (MCA) / Respondent bid and won a car auction for $2515.00 on Trade Me / Applicant and Trade Me unable to contact Respondent about the purchase / Applicant relisted the car a month later and it sold for $1670.00 / Respondent was a 17-year-old high school student and was in breach of Trade Me’s terms and conditions that users must be 18 years old / Applicant claims damages for the price difference and other costs incurred for second auction / Held: the contract was not part of a considered, negotiated bargain / Respondent did not think she would win the auction as there had been strong competition before she placed her bid / Applicant expected Respondent to be an adult / Respondent failed to communicate her age in a timely manner / placing bids in an online auction is the sort of contract the MCA is designed to protect minors against / contract cannot be enforced / an award of the full amount of damage not appropriate / loss component not included in th...

  12. ED Ltd v UW Ltd [2016] NZDT 922 (1 July 2016) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Contract / Respondent purchased Company B from Company A / Respondent assigned the licence and supply agreement that Company A has with the Applicant / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 for Respondent’s breach of the agreement / Held: Respondent breached cl 8.4 of agreement by not checking whether the Applicant had the items in stock before using another supplier / Applicant breached cl 8.3 of agreement by failing to attempt to supply stock from an alternative supplier when it did not have the item in stock itself / this breach was not a defence to Respondent’s breach of cl 8.4 / meaning of cl 4.7 raised issue of ambiguity / cl 4.7 inserted specifically when Company A purchased business from Company B  so should be treated as having a different meaning than cl 8.4 / Respondent entitled to flexible product sourcing options under cl 4.7 / no evidence showing cl 4.7 not meant to include subsequent buyers of the business / principle of contra proferentum applies so contract is interpreted again...

  13. DL Ltd v VO [2016] NZDT 952 (17 June 2016) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Credit (Repossession) Act 1997 (C(R)A) / Respondent took out loan from Applicant of $8598 to purchase motor vehicle / loan secured against motor vehicle / Respondent was to pay $108.53 under consumer credit agreement / Respondent stopped making payments / Applicant repossessed and sold vehicle / Applicant claims $6,936.70 for shortfall following vehicle sale / Held: consumer credit agreement valid, can be enforced and was breached by Respondent / Applicant used all reasonable efforts to obtain best price for vehicle as required under C(R)A / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,649.20

  14. DZ v VA, VAV Ltd & VAVU Ltd [2016] NZDT 921 (9 June 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant arranged flights through the second and third Respondents / third Respondent disallowed Applicant to travel / second Respondent deducted cancellation fees and refunded balance to Applicant / Applicant claimed refund of fees deducted by second Respondent / Held: third Respondent did not provide its services to Applicant with reasonable skill and care / Applicant entitled to cancel contract with third Respondent because failure could not be remedied / third Respondent liable to pay Applicant damages in compensation / Applicant suffered consequential loss from third Respondent’s breach of the CGA which was the amount charged for second Respondent’s cancellation fees / claim allowed, third Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,550.

  15. DW v VD [2016] NZDT 914 (11 May 2016) [PDF, 154 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased a boat from Respondent without inspecting it or performing a sea test / boat had running issues and underwent repairs / Applicant claimed $15,000 on basis of misrepresentation of boat condition and fittings / Held: winch condition of boat misrepresented in advertisement by Respondent / condition of bilge pump misrepresented in advertisement / age of GPS fish finder misrepresented / no other misrepresentations found / caveat emptor, buyer beware principle applies / statements made after contract are not representations / Applicant’s claim brought six years after discovery of problems / Applicant only succeed in parts of claim that amount to misrepresentation / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2866.55.

  16. EG & EGE v UT & UTU [2016] NZDT 949 (21 April 2016) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Applicants purchased a property from Respondents / greywater was found to be discharging onto Applicants’ property / an investigation revealed septic system began overflowing when blocking plate removed from pipes / Applicants carried out extensive remedial and replacement work / Applicants claimed $15,000.00 from Respondents for their non-disclosure of the issue / Held: Respondent had no issues with the septic system since mid-1970s so had nothing to disclose when asked / no evidence to prove any problem occurred prior to the one the Applicant’s experienced / no other basis for claim / claim dismissed.

  17. DK v VP Ltd & VPV [2016] NZDT 944 (6 April 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16

  18. DY & DYD v VB [2016] NZDT 941 (1 April 2016) [PDF, 128 KB]

    Application for rehearing out of time / parties had 28 days after original hearing to file rehearing application / Tribunal received Respondent’s application six weeks out of time / Held: reason for delay alone would not prevent rehearing / Respondent had enough notice to produce evidence before original hearing / would be an unreasonable burden on Applicants to overturn original decision after full hearing / insufficient preparation for hearing not grounds to have matter reopened / leave to apply for rehearing out of time declined.

  19. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [PDF, 125 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs

  20. CY-Ltd-v-XB-and-XBX-2016-892-21-March-2016 [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) / sale and purchase of land / Respondents stopped making payments for loan relating to purchase / Applicant claims amount outstanding / HELD: Tribunal found that Applicant is a creditor and that the agreement between the parties is a consumer credit contract under CCCFA / however, as Applicant did not comply with disclosure provisions under CCCFA, it cannot enforce consumer credit agreement / also, Applicant might not be registered as a financial service provider and may not be a member of any approved dispute resolution scheme / claim dismissed

  21. CP Ltd v XL Ltd 2016 NZDT 906 (16 March 2016) [PDF, 123 KB]

    Contract / sale and purchase of business / while restaurant equipment included on chattels list, equipment required to run restaurant not included / Applicant’s claim reduced to maximum amount claimable in Tribunal for one year’s hire of equipment not provided / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid balance of stock-in-trade / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to include all assets used to run business / while Applicant required to check and approve equipment, Applicant did not fail to perform due diligence / Applicant’s claim not challenged, Respondent’s counterclaim payable / claim and counter-claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $12,522.69

  22. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (RoadUser) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed againstRespondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collisionby opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent havingbreached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actualrepairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent orderedto pay insurance company $1,708.72

  23. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to replace existing grout in shower / nickel shower drain was scratched and first grout failed / Respondent removed and replaced it / second scratch made / Respondent denied fault for scratch / Applicant claimed $6000 for full replacement of shower drain and regrouting, and claimed remedial work was inadequate / Held: both scratches caused by Respondent / scratches constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill / insufficient evidence to show remedial work was not of acceptable quality / it is appropriate for another supplier to replace the shower drain / another grouting job will also be required / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600.00.

  24. DJ v VQ Ltd [2016] NZDT 897 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to hydro-seed lawn for $1,300 / grass was not growing well several weeks later / Applicant claims fence marked during spraying and claims full refund of $1,300 / Held: Applicant failed to establish evidence that Respondent’s service not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not make undertakings to provide ongoing lawn maintenance and lawn’s ultimate health depends on its ongoing care and watering / Applicant’s evidence unable to prove claims / claim dismissed