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 for Filing.

111 items matching your search terms

  1. FI v S Ltd [2025] NZDT 13 (9 April 2025) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a water distiller from the Respondent / Applicant noticed rust forming inside the wall of the distiller’s stainless steel boiling chamber / Efforts to clean the rust were unsuccessful / Applicant sought a refund of the purchase price and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee / Respondent said the rust the Applicant referred to would have been the result of her inappropriate use of an abrasive agent / Held: the extensive rust referred to by the Applicant was not normal and not such as should be reasonably acceptable to a reasonable consumer / No causal link between the use of an abrasive agent and the rust appearing / Device’s failure to meet the relative, and applicable, guarantee was substantial / Respondent was to provide a full refund of the purchase price of $599.00 / Tribunal had no power to award the Tribunal filing fee / Claim allowed in part.

  2. IX v J Ltd [2025] NZDT 23 (09 April 2025) [PDF, 97 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a vehicle from Respondent for $10,000 / Applicant claimed the vehicle experienced technical issues after he bought it and the car was no longer road worthy / Applicant rejected the car and claimed $18,793.22 for the purchase price, consequential losses, and the filing fee / Held: car was not of acceptable quality due to its faults and above all was no longer drivable /  Applicant entitled to a refund as the goods have a failure of substantial character / Respondent ordered to pay $11,748.44 for cost of the car and consequential losses / Disputes Tribunal unable to award the filing fee / Claim granted in part.  

  3. NC & QC v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 840 (11 December 2024) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased dresser from Respondent / Applicants claimed dresser's timber began to break apart while putting together / Applicant sought refund of purchase price, shipping cost and filing fee / Respondent claimed damage caused by incorrect installing of screws and therefore not covered under manufacturer's warranty / Held: middle panel of dresser is not of acceptable quality / Substantial failure / Drawers cannot be put together securely with a weakened middle panel / Replacement not available within reasonable time / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Tribunal unable to make order relating to filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $397 / Claim allowed in part.

  4. NN v OD v Z Ltd [2024] NZDT 797 (27 November 2024) [PDF, 274 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants hired rental car from Respondent using online booking platform / Car was damaged by third party / Applicants returned vehicle and provided third party’s details to Respondent / Respondent charged Applicants $5,022.50 for insurance excess, indicated refund available if Applicants contacted booking platform / Booking platform advised insurance policy was with Respondent, Respondent should be contacted for refund / Applicants made numerous attempts to follow up but Respondent had not refunded excess / Applicants claimed $6,322.50 for the excess, credit card surcharge and costs related to resolving dispute / Held: rental contract provided basic insurance coverage with $4900 excess, refundable if hirer not at fault or third party admitted liability / Respondent breached CGA by failing to make reasonable effort to resolve matter in reasonable time / Respondent breached contract by failing to follow up with third party / Filing fee or…

  5. CN v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 744 (26 November 2024) [PDF, 216 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent operate an online shop specialising in cashmere clothing / Applicant ordered a cashmere sweater from the Respondent for $284.00 / Once received the Applicant enquired whether the sweater was 100 percent cashmere as advertised / Later, Applicant stated that she wanted to return it / Respondent advised that as the item was a sale item it could not be returned / Applicant claimed the sweater was not fit for purpose / Applicant advised there were holes in the sweater, and she wished to return it for a full refund / Respondent refused to give a refund / Respondent suggested the holes were likely caused by incorrect storage or damage / Applicant sought $343.00, being the $248.00 refund price along with $59.00 filing fee / Held: no evidence provided to show the sweater was not 100 percent cashmere, apart from the Applicant’s own experience purchasing cashmere / Unclear whether holes were caused by machine washing or quality of sweater /…

  6. LT v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 690 (13 November 2024) [PDF, 97 KB]

    Parking / Contract / Applicant's daughter parked vehicle seven minutes beyond the 180-minute parking limit / Respondent issued Applicant a breach notice / Applicant claimed refund of parking breach and filing fee / Held: Applicant's daughter authorised to park and was not a trespasser / Driver entitled some leeway to enter and exit building / Applicant entitled to refund / Filing fee cannot be recovered by Applicant as exceptional circumstances did not apply / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $65 / Claim allowed.

  7. OD v JE [2024] NZDT 794 (13 November 2024) [PDF, 183 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent for $6,300 / Subsequently, Applicant experienced mechanical issues, including stalling and engine failure / Mechanics found blockages and metal deposits in the oil / Respondent claimed the car had run well during his ownership and he was unaware of any defects / Applicant claimed for refund of $6,300, repair costs of $572.98, cost of new engine at $4,933.50 and Disputes Tribunal filing fee of $180.00 / Respondent counterclaimed for $964.43 / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent the state of the car / Applicant’s claim dismissed as she took a risk in purchasing an old car with a high odometer reading / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed as the costs sought were not allowed under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

  8. TD v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 761 (31 October 2024) [PDF, 202 KB]

    Trespass / Contract / Land Transport Act 1998 / Vehicle registered in Applicant's name parked in private carpark without authority / Respondent sent Applicant a breach notice which Applicant disputed and asked for evidence proving breach / Respondent said registered owner of vehicle liable per New Zealand Transport Authority and provided one photo that did not evidence illegal parking / Applicant said lack of contract with Respondent meant Applicant had no liability / Respondent lodged debt for collection with debt collection agency and Applicant filed claim with Tribunal / Applicant claimed for order that she is not liable to pay Respondent for breach notice, collection costs and sought reimbursement of filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of breach notice, collection costs and interest / Held: Applicant is not liable for breach fee as she was not driving vehicle at the time / No provisions applicable in tort that mean a registered owner can be liable for another's tresp…

  9. NN v EE [2024] NZDT 736 (14 October 2024) [PDF, 177 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 /  Two families made a booking to stay at a property owned by the Respondent / On arrival they were unhappy with the state of the premises, including cleanliness and safety / Respondent offered to send people to remedy the issues, but the families decided not to stay / Families asked for a full refund, which was refused / Applicant, on behalf of the parties, claimed $1,642.50 from Respondent, representing a full refund together with $100.00 for travel expenses and $59.00 for filing fee / Held: property was not reasonably fit for a short holiday / Failure was of a substantial nature and could not easily be remedied within a reasonable time period / Offer to send contractors to remedy the issues was not acceptable given the purpose was for a three-day holiday / Applicant entitled to cancel without providing an opportunity to the supplier to remedy the problems / Since the families left the accommodation within a short ti…

  10. LG v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 818 (14 October 2024) [PDF, 129 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant brought sofa from Respondent with USB and reclining functions advertised / Applicant complained to Respondent about electrical fault six months after purchase as USB and reclining functions failed / Respondent attempted repairs of sofa / Applicant found repairs were unsuccessful and had damaged leather / Respondent collected sofa and offered replacement, partial refund, or in-store credit and suggested power surge caused issues / Applicant did not agree to those options / Applicant claimed for non-electric sofa of same value or full refund of $2099, plus compensation and reimbursement of filing fee / Held: sofa was not of acceptable quality as marketed functions failed after six months / Applicant rejected sofa within reasonable time after giving Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy faults / Applicant entitled to full refund of $2099 for sofa, refund of $50 carrier fee Respondent charged for transport of sofa for repairs, p…

  11. DU v X Ltd [2024] NZDT 630 (20 September 2024) [PDF, 163 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a second-hand mattress from Respondent for $1,280.00 / Mattress was advertised as used but “practically new” / The first time Applicant went to make the bed, she noticed a corner pulled away exposing the inside of the mattress / Applicant contacted Respondent to return the mattress / Respondent collected the bed and offered to resell it on Applicant’s behalf, less a $250 fee / Applicant stated she paid $1,280.00 for the bed and $45.00 for the Tribunal filing fee and was refunded $750.00 by Respondent / Applicant claimed the difference of $575.00 / Respondent claimed the mattress was not damaged when it was delivered / Held: evidence indicated mattress was not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to reject the mattress and be refunded what she was paid, less what the Respondent had already refunded / Respondent ordered to pay $530 / Claim allowed.

  12. CG & NA v YA [2024] NZDT 695 (9 September 2024) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent as a maternity matron / Respondent was to care for newborn, prepare food, and support the mother / Fee was $380 per day / Agreement required 24/7 service / Due to a family death, the Respondent informed Applicants they could not work night shifts or start on the agreed date / Applicants claimed Respondent breached the contract and sought refund of bond, postpartum meal costs, and filing fee / Held: Applicants entitled to bond refund / Postpartum meal costs were not a consequential loss caused by the Respondent / Loss mitigated by hiring another matron / Filing fee could not be awarded in the circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants’ $2,660.00 / Claim allowed in part.

  13. HX v MT & OM [2024] NZDT 613 (26 August 2024) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Contract / Applicant moved into a flat rented by First Respondent / Applicant paid First Respondent a bond / When Applicant moved out, First Respondent retained an amount equivalent to one week’s rent from Applicant’s bond as Applicant had only given two weeks’ notice / Applicant brought claim for recovery of balance of bond / Applicant also claimed $45 additional rent he was asked to pay when another flatmate left, plus cost of filing claim / Held: notice period was not discussed when Applicant moved in / Three months later, First Respondent asked all flatmates to sign a flatmate sharing agreement containing a provision requiring four weeks’ notice to vacate / Applicant did not sign agreement / Applicant not bound by the agreement / Two weeks’ notice given by Applicant was reasonable / Applicant entitled to a refund of $215 balance of bond / Additional $45 was paid following agreement reached by all flatmates, not recoverable / Filing fee not recoverable in circumstances / First Respo…

  14. QN v UD & ND [2024] NZDT 640 (26 August 2024) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Contract / Respondents advertised a tractor for sale on a website / Initially, the tractor was listed for $9000 / Subsequently, the price was amended to "$9,500 or nearest offer excluding GST" / Applicant purchased the tractor and paid $10,350, which included the buy now price plus GST / Applicant subsequently noticed the website terms and conditions provided all must be GST inclusive / Applicant sought $1,395 (GST paid and filing fee) from the Respondents / Held: the website terms and conditions did not affect the agreement between the parties, as it was their agreement and the website was not a party to it / Applicant had agreed with the Respondent to purchase the tractor for $9000 plus GST / Claim dismissed.

  15. DQ v OR & SN [2024] NZDT 879 (19 August 2024) [PDF, 261 KB]

    Contract / Loan / Limitation Act 1950 / Applicant provided financial support to husband as loan by agreement / Husband acknowledged debt owed to Applicant after separation from Applicant / Ex-husband signed property agreement referring to debt and repayment obligation following separation from Applicant / Ex-husband provided $6000 cheque as part payment of debt / Loan quantum unclear as Applicant provided various lists of expenses with differing amounts / Applicant claimed amount owing from ex-husband at about $100,000 / Held: Agreement existed between Applicant and ex-husband that Applicant was owed $30,000 by ex-husband and this was to be repaid / Evidence that ex-husband referred to needing a loan and acknowledged debt owed to Applicant / Evidence from ex-husband's accountant showed debt quantum around $100,000 / No advances made after July 2017, so Applicant filing claim in November 2023 was technically outside 6 year limitation period / Cheque and property agreement taken as writt…

  16. IB v TT [2024] NZDT 588 (29 July 2024) [PDF, 172 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into an agreement to purchase a property from the Respondent / Applicant got a building inspection done before purchase but not a specialised watertightness inspection / After settlement, Applicant noticed a leak in the garage / Applicant consulted plumbers but they could not provide a solution / Applicant concluded the Respondent knew about the leak / Applicant claimed $28,500.00 from Respondent, comprising $258.75 for legal costs, $230.00 for a private investigator, $460.00 for engineer’s report, $180.00 for filing fee, and $27,255.00 for estimated cost of repairing leak / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent knew about the leak / Applicant did not produce any evidence that Respondent made any statements that might have amounted to a misrepresentation / Respondent did not have legal duty to disclose the leak / Under the contract, Applicant bore the risk that there could be problems with …

  17. EM & TM v FW [2024] NZDT 575 (10 July 2024) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased a house from Respondent / Spa pool was part of purchase / When the Applicants attempted to use the spa it caused the electricity board to trip and cut power to the house / Spa pool drew more electricity than the house was supplied with / Applicant claimed $27,147.27 from Respondent, comprising of $449.22 to diagnose issue; $25,193.05 to install an additional electrical cable; $1,000.00 in legal fees; $325.00 physio costs and $180.00 for filing fee / Respondent denied liability on the basis that the spa worked when she lived at the property / Held: there was misrepresentation about the spa pool / Evidence accepted that electrical supply to the house was insufficient to run the spa /  Applicants induced into contract by misrepresentation / Spa was 15 years old so replacement value assessed to be $15,000 / Legal fees were reasonable / Applicants not awarded claimed $325.00 for physio costs for being…

  18. EI & MQ v M Ltd [2024] NZDT 485 (19 June 2024) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased bedding package from Respondent for $6000.00 / Bed package was delivered but Applicants noted significant damage / Respondent agreed to provide a complete replacement of package / Respondent failed to provide a replacement / Applicants claimed $6000 plus filing fee / Respondent agreed Applicants entitled to a refund but argued they should only receive what Respondent received in payment from the credit company, $6,000.00 less the merchant fees / Held: bed package was not replaced and Applicants were out of pocket $6,000.00 / Applicants not party to agreement between Respondent and credit company / If any paid merchant fees were to be reimbursed then it was a matter for Respondent to discuss with credit company / Respondent ordered to refund Applicants $6000.00 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.

  19. QW v DI [2024] NZDT 468 (18 June 2024) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contacted Respondent about buying her car / Parties negotiated price of $5,250.00 / Applicant observed unusual behaviour in the car ten days after purchase / Applicant got a mechanic’s report and contacted Respondent about issues identified / Respondent refused to refund Applicant or contribute to repair costs / Respondent had stated car had been “well looked after mechanically” / Applicant claimed $4,903.45 in damages, comprising $4,250.00 for loss in value, $287.50 for diagnosis, $57.95 for a fee to return parts purchased, $218.00 for other parts purchased, and $90.00 filing fee / Held: representation that car had been well looked after mechanically influenced Applicant’s decision to go ahead with the purchase without any pre-purchase inspection / Applicant was induced by the misrepresentation to enter into the contract / Applicant entitled to recover half cost of engine replacement and diagnosis, $2,022.70 / Claim allowed i…

  20. HBG v AJ Ltd [2024] NZDT 501 (13 June 2024) [PDF, 193 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a waterproof cargo bag from Respondent for $159.00 plus $19.99 shipping / Bag designed to be carried on a car roof / Applicant attached bag to roof of vehicle for a long journey / Applicant noticed two tears in the fabric near fastening straps during course of journey / Respondent considered damage was caused by overtightening fastening straps / Applicant claimed $223.99, purchase price plus shipping cost and $45 filing fee / Held: cargo bag was not of acceptable quality / Bag was not fit for purpose it was described by supplier as being suitable for and was not durable / Applicant entitled to reject goods and receive refund, $159.00 / Applicant also entitled to shipping cost of $19.99 as a loss directly arising from the failure / Respondent required to collect the goods at own cost / Filing fee unable to be awarded in the circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay $178.99 / Claim allowed in part.

  21. BC v BQ [2024] NZDT 390 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 142 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant paid $12,000.00 deposit to secure purchase of horse from Respondent / Horse remained with Respondent, apart from a period when it was leased to Applicant for a horse camp / When Respondent retrieved horse after camp, she claimed it was lame / Applicant decided not to proceed with purchase, requested refund / Applicant claimed $12,250.00 for purchase price and filing fee / Respondent counter-claimed $8,000.00 for reduced value of horse / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract and obtain full refund until final payment was made, according to agreement / Respondent failed to prove horse suffered laminitis caused during time she was under Applicant’s responsibility / Respondent breached agreement by failing to refund Applicant / Filing fee not recoverable / Respondent ordered to pay $12,000.00 / Claim allowed in part and counter-claim dismissed.

  22. N Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 341 (25 May 2024) [PDF, 97 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant allowed employee to use company car for personal use / Employee exceeded time limit in carpark managed by Respondent / Respondent issued $65.00 breach notice to Applicant / Applicant refused to pay on basis it had no contract with Respondent / Respondent continued to demand payment / Applicant claimed $145.00 for filing fee and time spent dealing with Respondent’s letters / Respondent waived charges following notice of hearing, / Applicant continued with claim, arguing Respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Held: Respondent made misleading representation by asserting its terms and conditions bound owners of vehicles as well as drivers / $100.00 was conservative estimate of Applicant’s time and monetary loss involved in responding to Respondent’s misleading representation / Filing fee could not be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay $100.00 / Claim allowed in part.

  23. SN v ZX [2024] NZDT 313 (24 May 2024) [PDF, 85 KB]

    Contract / Interest / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant engaged by Respondent as an independent contractor for data entry work / Applicant filed claim against Respondent for $360.84, unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44 plus interest, damages for time pursuing payment, and filing fee / Unpaid sums since been paid / Applicant now claimed $840.00 in compensation for late payment, including interest, time spent and filing fee / Held: no contractual provision for interest in circumstances / DTA provided for interest to be ordered at Tribunal’s discretion / DTA does not allow for interest where debt was paid before hearing / Circumstances not met for costs to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

  24. TX v UQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 355 (10 May 2024) [PDF, 163 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant claimed his car was damaged by a runaway trolley in a supermarket carpark run by the Respondent / Applicant claimed $711.25 for repair costs and $45 filing fee / Held: insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent was negligent / Likely another customer left the trolley in an insecure position / Unreasonable to expect a supermarket to employ enough staff to immediately move every wrongly placed trolley / Claim dismissed.

You can try using these keywords to search the whole site.