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

301 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. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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

  10. 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.

  11. 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 ...

  12. DQ Ltd v MS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1314 (21 December 2020) [PDF, 188 KB]

    Consumer law / s 13(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 / s 28 of the Consumer Information Standard (Used Vehicle) Regulations 2008 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Respondent provided Applicant with a Consumer Information Notice at point of sale / notice incorrectly stated that the vehicle had not been imported as a damaged vehicle / Applicant claims $29,980.00 for cost of vehicle and sign writing / Held: Respondent made false representations regarding history of the vehicle / Respondent did not comply with Consumer Information Standard regulations / No defence under s 44(5) of the Fair Trading Act as Respondent knew, or should have known, that it did not comply with the consumer information standard / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29,980.00 / Applicant ordered to make vehicle available for collection by Respondent.

  13. GT v SGG Ltd & Ors [2017] NZDT 1047 (27 November 2017) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Jurisdiction / applicant purchased trailer to build tiny house / trailer registered in applicant’s name & statement that ownership transferred on payment / seller went into liquidation & trailer & partially built house included in sale of business / whether Tribunal has jurisdiction or whether claim should be transferred to District Court (DC) / whether applicant had title to trailer / whether respondent liquidator liable for conversion / Companies Act 1993, s284 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Held: claim based on property ownership not debt so Tribunal has jurisdiction / Tribunal regularly deals with interpretation of contracts so no need to transfer to DC / trailer in a deliverable state / applicant had title to trailer / ownership transferred on payment & attaching plates signified intention to transfer / respondent liable for conversion / applicant deliberately excluded from possession by respondent / claim allowed / respondent ordered to pay $12,737.05 to applicant.

  14. WQ Ltd v ND Ltd [2020] NZDT 1323 (10 November 2020) [PDF, 152 KB]

    Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant as a subcontractor to complete plumbing work / Applicant claims $15,548.84 owed under various unpaid invoices, plus interest / Respondent counter-claims that Applicant overcharged for work done and did not complete work / counter-claim struck out as issue previously determined in the Building Disputes Tribunal / Held: likely that Applicant did not receive the conditions of sub contract / even if Applicant breached contract, no evidence Respondent suffered loss or would have otherwise been entitled to damages / Applicant owed amounts detailed in outstanding invoices / Applicant not entitled to interest / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $15,548.84

  15. SG v H Ltd [2020] NZDT 1327 (29 October 2020) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant formed company to provide finance for new companies / Applicant occasionally lent own money to company and was typically repaid by the Respondent / Applicant resigned and discovered he was owed payment of $7,025.29 from Respondent / Applicant submitted claim for repayment of the sum / Respondent claims that Applicant signed a confirmation on his resignation that the Respondent does not owe him any money and he has no other claims against Respondent / Held: resignation letter binding contract / Claim dismissed.

  16. NT v HS [2020] NZDT 1312 (21 October 2020) [PDF, 270 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Applicant purchased racehorse from Respondent via an online auction / Horse was found to be lame after delivery to Applicant and took time to recover / Although Applicant took a chance purchasing an older racehorse he could reasonably expect that the horse would have feet in rideable condition / Extent of issues with the horse must have related to a pre-existing condition at the time of sale / Applicant claimed refund costs plus remedial costs or, alternatively, remedial costs plus training fees to bring horse back into work / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 applies to sales by auction / The horse recovered and is of acceptable quality / The applicant was not in trade and the Respondent could not contract out of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 therefore it covers the state of lameness on arrival of the horse / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $742.00.

  17. OH Ltd v NI Ltd [2020] NZDT 1320 (30 September 2020) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Contract / Applicant supplied and maintained doors to a supermarket / Contract was originally with one company then interest transferred to Respondent / Contract ended and doors were removed by Applicant per contract / Costs for removal of doors in dispute / Applicant claimed Respondent responsible for costs of removal of doors under contract / Respondent claimed no proof of terms regarding removal in contract / Held: contract required Respondent to pay for removal of doors only where contract terminated due to breach by Respondent / Removal costs not recoverable as contract came to end when fixed term ended / Claim dismissed

  18. TN v JH and GG [2020] 1321 NZDT (14 September 2020) [PDF, 212 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a used car from the Respondents for $1800.00 / Respondents made misleading statements about condition of car in Facebook ad / Car could not obtain Warrant of Fitness without significant structural work / Estimated wreck value of car is $350.00 / Applicants claim a refund of the purchase price of the car / Respondents claim the car was sold “as is where is” / Held: Respondents misrepresented the car / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 provides some protection for purchasers of goods in private sales / Applicants have suffered a loss / Claim allowed, Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $1450.00.

  19. TT v KU [2020] NZDT 1324 (9 September 2020) [PDF, 230 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Applicant bought a pony from Respondent / Pony bolted, bucked and exhibited dangerous behaviour contrary to advertisement about being easy to ride / Applicant claims pony not suitable to be ridden by daughter, requests refund of purchase price and to return pony to Respondent / Respondent claims pony as described in advertisement and issues were due to manner Respondent maintained, rode, or fed pony / Held: pony sold in trade therefore subject to guarantees under CGA / Pony not of acceptable quality / Applicant not able to reject pony as outside reasonable time to do so and had been returned to Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5320.00 / Applicant may keep or sell pony

  20. TN v LI [2020] NZDT 1325 (11 August 2020) [PDF, 215 KB]

    Contract / Applicant rehomed cat using agency / Respondent fostered cat prior to committing to full adoption / Applicant sought return of cat due to concerns about Respondent / Respondent refused to return cat after deciding to adopt it / Applicant filed claim seeking return of cat / Held: law of contract applies though no written agreement between parties / Held: parties agreed to terms including Respondent taking cat as foster arrangement, adopting if arrangement worked / Held: Applicant not entitled to demand return of cat or visitation rights / Claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $250.00 / Ownership of cat vested in Respondent.

  21. BT v DC [2020] NZDT 1334 (10 August 2020) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Quasi-contract / Applicant paid the sum of $3,580.00 to a friend for him to hold on her behalf / Account to which money was transferred was joint account with Respondent / Respondent claimed she thought money was wage subsidy payment and transferred it to her account / Respondent subsequently returned $1,900.00 to friend and used remainder of money to pay off credit card / Applicant seeks payment of the balance of $1,680.00 / Tribunal has jurisdiction in quasi-contract despite nocontractual obligation between parties or no physical damage to property / Quasi-contract arises when one party said to be unjustly enriched at the expense of another and is required as if there was a contract to make restitution to injured party / Held: Respondent liable to return money / Held: when Respondent transferred funds to her account she knew they belonged to Applicant therefore Respondent cannot claim funds received and used in good faith / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,680.0...

  22. QC Ltd (in liquidation) v WD Ltd [2020] NZDT 1326 (4 August 2020) [PDF, 213 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contract with Respondent to undertake building work / Applicant went into liquidation / Director of Applicant continued building work as sole trader / Director invoiced Respondent for work done pre-dating liquidation / Respondent paid Director for that work / Applicant claims payment should have been made for that work direct to Applicant / Respondent claimed costs of the proceedings / Held: contract was between Applicant and Respondent / Held: payment to Director did not amount to payment to Applicant for amount owed / Applicant entitled to payment but it is reasonable to share responsibility of payment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $800.00 to Applicant / Counter claim not allowed / Respondent not entitled to costs

  23. BD v AN [2020] NZDT 1333 (22 June 2020) [PDF, 368 KB]

    Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car collision / Applicant was hit from behind by Respondent / Collision caused $3,934.06 of damage to Applicant’s car and $3,139.20 of damage to Respondent’s car / Both parties seek cost of repairs / Applicant claimed the Respondent was at fault because he was following behind / Respondent claimed Applicant drove in an unsafe manner that created a situation on the road / Inference that Respondent as following driver responsible for failing to see Applicant, failing to keep a proper distance or failure to stop short / Respondent raised defence per r 1.8 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that he was responding to a situation on the road that was not of his making and was avoiding another crash / Held: unable to find Applicant was at fault / Applicant’s claim allowed / Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,934.06