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

691 items matching your search terms

  1. NT v AD [2021] NZDT 1665 (18 October 2021) [PDF, 161 KB]

    Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant’s house and garage destroyed by fire / Applicant claims if pressure release valve (PRV) near property worked properly, fire service would have been able to stop spread of fire to garage / Applicant claims Respondent liable for costs of contents of garage destroyed by fire / Did Respondent owe a duty of care to ensure PRV maintained / If so, did Respondent breach duty / If so, did breach cause loss of contents to garage / If so, what are losses / Held: Respondent owes duty of care to ensure PRVs maintained / Held: Respondent did not breach duty of care / Respondent had reasonable maintenance plain for PRVs and adhered to the plan / Claim dismissed.

  2. NM & B Ltd v J Ltd & RJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1662 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 240 KB]

    Tort / Duty of Care / Respondent constructed roadway near Applicant’s property / Applicant felt vibrations at property / Applicant’s concrete floor cracked / Applicant claims damage occurred during time roadway was constructed / Applicant claims damage caused wholly or partially by roadworks / Applicant claims $22,245.02 towards repair / Held: damage to internal floor occurred during time roadway was constructed / Held: damage cause partially by roadworks / roller caused vibrations at property / vibrations primary cause of damage / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $13,350.00 towards repair / Claim allowed

  3. QL v OQ [2021] NZDT 1664 (22 June 2021) [PDF, 116 KB]

    Contract / Applicant rented chair at business operated by Respondent / Applicant stated arrangement was abruptly terminated by Respondent / Applicant claimed $3,474.50 for lost earnings in period after termination of agreement / What terms were agreed regarding termination / Did Respondent unlawfully terminate agreement / If so, was Applicant entitled to sum claimed or any other sum / Held: contract was for initial three month period then continued wihtout agreed terms about termination / Respondent entitled to terminate agreement in circumstances, but notice period not reasonable / Applicant has not established he suffered financial loss / Claim dismissed. 

  4. BX v DD [2022] NZDT 42 (23 May 2022) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased a house from the Respondent / During the due diligence period, the Respondent indicated that one of the toilet seats had a crack in it / Respondent offered to replace the toilet seat / Applicant said he would find a replaced one / Fifteen months later, Applicant contacted the Respondent stating that he had a new toilet seat installed for $483.05 / Respondent disputed she was liable to pay / What was the offer that the Respondent made to the Applicant / Whether the Applicant accepted the offer within a reasonable time / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to the costs of the new toilet seat and the cost to install it / Held: Applicant did not expressly promise to pay for the cost to install the seat / Discussion was about the price of the toilet seat only / Offer to pay for the toilet seat remained open for a reasonable time / Offer had expired and was no longer available for acceptance / Respondent was not contractually obligated to pay for the cost...

  5. EQ v MT Ltd [2022] NZDT 45 (16 May 2022) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted the Respondent to do earthworks at his property / Part of the contract included taking fill from other sites and delivering it to be used on the property / Applicant observed that some of the truck loads of fill were contaminated / Applicant discussed matter with the Respondent but it failed to be remedied / Applicant claimed for the cost of remedial work and completion of work / Did the Respondent breach the contract by providing contaminated fill / Did the Respondent repudiate the contract by refusing to complete the earthworks / What amount, if any, was the Applicant entitled to in damages / Held: Respondent breached the contract by providing contaminated fill / Through their communication and actions the Respondent made it clear it would not perform its remaining obligations under the contract / Respondent repudiated the contract and the Applicant was entitled to cancel it / Costs of removing contaminated fill and completing earthworks was in excess ...

  6. KT & XG v ZA [2022] NZDT 30 (5 May 2022) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Applicant booked stay at Respondent’s accommodation for November 2021 / Applicant requested booking dates be changed to February after wedding attending was postponed / Respondent replied “no refunds or cancellation” / Applicant made second request more formally through travel website on 18 October 2021 / Booking cancellation policy had included provision for 50% refund if cancelled prior to 25 October 2021 / Respondent replied on 31 October and declined any refund  / Applicant’s claim full refund of $1032.18 / Held: Applicants effectively cancelled their booking by informing Respondent on 17 and 18 October / Respondent liable to pay 50% refund of $516.09 to Applicant / Claim allowed. 

  7. LT v NL [2022] NZDT 13 (5 May 2022) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Contract / Applicant loaned Respondent $30,000 cash and is asking for loan to be repaid / Respondent claims cash not recieved or stolen / Respondent claims claim is out of time, s 11 Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant claims $30,000 plus interest / Held: Respondent received cash / email evidence of parties discussing cash / Held: claim not out of time / the act or omission is not the lending of the money but the failure to return it when asked / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $30,000 / no contractual provision for interest and Applicant could have avoided loss of interest by filing claim earlier / Claim allowed.

  8. DM & IW v HD [2022] NZDT 44 (2 May 2022) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Building contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to build deck at their property / When deck was finished a number of problems with the work identified / Applicants obtained report from another builder regarding repairs required / Applicants claimed $30,000 to repair deck / Has Respondent completed the work to required standard in terms of the guarantee in the Act / If not, can they be repaired and if so has Respondent failed or refused to do so / If not, what is Respondent required to pay the Applicants / Held: clear breach of the guarantee in the Act in respect of timber used, the screws used and the advice given / Applicants gave Respondent opportunity to repair breaches but he did not do so / Respondent required to pay $30,000 to Applicants / Claim allowed. 

  9. KM v BE [2022] NZDT 25 (29 April 2022) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased TV unit from Respondent for $300 / TV unit defective / Applicant filed Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant requested $345.00 refund to cover costs / Respondent refused / Applicant retained TV unit for 9 months / Applicant claims refund under CGA / Respondent claims Applicant forfeited right to refund due to retaining TV unit for 9 months section 20 of the CGA / Held: Applicant was entitled to refund / Held: Applicant forfeited right to refund / Applicant had sufficient time to return unit and obtain refund / claim dismissed.

  10. EL v FO [2022] NZDT 8 (28 April 2022) [PDF, 228 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to make a 21st birthday cake / Applicant provided details for the cake design including a request for marbled filling/ Cake was not marbled and Applicant was disappointed with cake provided  / Applicant was offered a refund but chose to take the cake / Whether Respondent iced the cake with reasonable care and skill in accordance with the agreement / Whether Applicant was entitled to a refund / Held: lack of marbling does not justify a refund nor does it devalue the cake / Cake was iced in accordance with instructions / Not satisfied that the Respondent breached her obligations under the contract or the CGA / Applicant deemed to have accepted the cake by taking possession of it after being offered a refund / No refund justified / Claim dismissed.

  11. KG & LG v HL [2022] NZDT 11 (28 April 2022) [PDF, 119 KB]

    Contract / Trespass / Conversion / Respondent cut back trees and shrubs on Applicants’ property / Applicants claimed Respondent cut trees and shrubs back without permission / Respondent claimed there was an agreement trees and plants could be cut back to their current height / Applicant claimed trespass and conversion / Applicants claimed $8,073.00 for replacement trees / Applicants claimed $4,442.00 in legal fees / Respondent claimed Applicants agreed to pay for their time cutting back trees / Respondent claimed $815.00 / Held: no agreement for trees and shrubs to be cut back to their current height / Respondent committed trespass / Respondent wrongly interfered with Applicants’ property / Respondent committed conversion / Cutting back plants was inconsistent with Applicants’ rights to say how much plants should be cut back / Respondent to pay Applicants $6,060.50 for replacement of trees and shrubs / Reduced amount claimed as quote was for greater number of trees than were cut down /...

  12. QS v DD Ltd [2022] NZDT 27 (20 April 2022) [PDF, 128 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent in May 2021 /Applicant had finance agreement including breakdown insurance / Applicant had issues with vehicle in July 2021 and it broke down in August 2021 / Applicant completed insurance claim form after advising Respondent of issues with vehicle / Delay in getting vehicle inspected due to Covid Level 4 lockdown in September 2021 / Applicant requested full refund in November after further delays / Vehicle transmission fixed but other issues overlooked and carried out in February 2022 / Applicant seeks to reject the vehicle, cancel the contract and obtain amounts paid to date including refund for breakdown payments and costs for period without car / Was vehicle of acceptable quality, if not was any failure of the guarantee a failure of substantial character / What remedy is available to Applicant and does fact repairs completed affect that remedy / What is payable on the claim / Held: vehicle not as ...

  13. MR v BJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 17 (20 April 2022) [PDF, 234 KB]

    Contract / Applicant lodged claim with Respondent following damage to TV / Respondent offered replacement on a similar model TV with similar features as model Applicant had no longer available / Applicant wanted different model but Respondent claimed replacement reasonable / Applicant accepted offer and paid difference to upgrade to preferred model / Applicant claims difference / Held: Respondent complied with policy in providing replacement model TV with equivalent features / No evidence Applicant disadvantaged by accepting replacement TV / Claim dismissed

  14. QQ v TQ [2022] NZDT 41 (19 April 2022) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Respondent is accommodation provider through various booking platforms / Applicant made accommodation booking for August 2021 direct with Respondent and paid 50% deposit / Prior to dates of booking Applicant paid balance of accommodation cost / New Zealand went into Level 4 lockdown and Applicant unable to travel / Applicant attempted to rebook accommodation but suitable dates not available / Respondent refunded 50% deposit but refused to refund remaining 50% / Applicant claims $980.00 / Whether Applicant entitled to refund or all money paid for accommodation as cancellation due to Covid-19 lockdown / Held: terms of booking platforms do not apply to contract between parties / Contract terms and conditions set out in text messages between parties / Messages include deposit non-refundable except for Covid lockdowns / Even if this not implied term, contract frustrated under CCLA / Respondent to pay $980.00 to Applicant / Claim grant...

  15. VE & BU v TZ [2022] NZDT 31 (8 April 2022) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Property / Misrepresentation / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant made an offer on Respondent’s property in October 2021 which was accepted the same day / Settlement took place in December 2021 /  During removal of vinyl planks from the garage floor applicants’ builder noticed wide cracks determined by a structural engineer to be the result of compromised structural foundation capacity due to soil settlement / Applicants claimed $22,000.00 in damages to cover remedial repairs and rent due to delayed moving / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act does not apply to the sale of whole properties /  Something that is visually obscured or covered does not amount to a misrepresentation / Purchasers have a duty to carry out their own inspections and satisfy themselves as to the condition of the property prior to making an unconditional offer / No misrepresentation and therefore no remedy is available to the Applicants / Claim dismissed.

  16. EN & UN v DW [2022] NZDT 24 (28 March 2022) [PDF, 180 KB]

    Negligence / Trees / Applicants and Respondent owned neighbouring properties / Respondent made arrangement with another neighbour to cut down trees on the boundary of their properties / Trees were cut down on Applicants’ property instead, fence damaged / Applicants marketing property at the time / Applicants claimed that gap left by felled trees put off potential buyers / Applicants sold property but said sale price was diminished due to loss of privacy / Applicants claimed $4,999 from Respondent in relation to felled trees and damaged fence / Whether Respondent liable for felled trees and fence damage / Whether Applicants entitled to sum claimed / Held: evidence indicated that another neighbour cut down trees / Respondent did not cut down trees / Respondent did not have any connection with incident, other than giving authorisation to cut down trees on her property / Respondent cannot be liable to Applicants for damage to trees or fence / Claim dismissed.

  17. ST v Council [2022] NZDT 9 (24 March 2022) [PDF, 92 KB]

    Negligence / Tree maintenance / Tree fell onto Applicant’s car / Tree on a verge owned by Respondent / Applicant sought compensation from Respondent / Respondent denied lability / Respondent arborist checked tree eight months before event and found no external signs of concern / Whether Respondent breached duty of care owed to Applicant / If so, what remedy was Applicant entitled to / Held: not satisfied that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to its checking and maintenance of tree / Tree was last checked eight months before untoward event, which was not unreasonable / Arborist had no reason to suspect there was problem with tree / Claim dismissed.

  18. LL v BT [2022] NZDT (24 March 2022) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Loan / Applicant loaned $1,400.00 to Respondent so she could pay her rent and avoid eviction /  Money was transferred directly into Respondent’s landlord’s account / Respondent agreed to repay money / Loan not repaid / Did Applicant agree to loan money to Respondent on the promise it would be repaid / Held: no dispute that $1,400.00 was loaned to the Respondent and that she agreed to repay it / No reason to not accept the Applicant’s evidence that loan has not been repaid / Respondent did not answer her phone to further her defence / Respondent ordered to pay $1,400.00 to the Applicant / Claim granted 

  19. UN & JI v NB Ltd [2022] NZDT 32 (23 March 2022) [PDF, 164 KB]

    Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased two flats under a cross-lease title in 2016 / Each flat had a garage allocated to it / Garages were not attached to the flats but were separately located in the section / Applicants tried to sell the property in 2018, however, their real estate agent discovered one of the garage’s encroached into the neighbouring land / Prospective purchasers, proved unwilling to purchase the land due to the title defect / Applicants remain the owner of the property / Applicants claimed damages to cover costs involved in a survey of the land, and appropriate legal and practical work that might be needed in establishing an easement or new, accurate, plans / Held: Respondent’s conduct was not misleading or deceptive as it was unknown at the time that the new garage also encroached in the same way as the old one / No wrongful conduct was established on the part of any of the Respondents / Respondents not liable...

  20. BL v BU Ltd [2022] NZDT 14 (22 March 2022) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Towing / Applicant’s car towed by Respondent / Applicant paid $429.24 to recover car / Applicant claimed amount charged unreasonable / Applicant claimed there no signage that car was parked on private property or in tow away zone / Applicant sought $429.24 from Respondent /  Whether car should have been towed / Whether tow fee unreasonable / Held: no legal requirement for private property owners to display signage that car parked on their property may be towed / Cost charged by Respondent was in line with other tow costs / Claim dismissed.

  21. QH v TU Ltd [2022] NZDT 12 (22 March 2022) [PDF, 236 KB]

    Towing / Applicant parked car in area managed by Second Respondent / Applicant paid for parking via app / Applicant paid for wrong parking space / Applicant’s car towed by Respondent / Applicant claimed refund for amount charged by Respondent for towing vehicle / Whether Applicant breached terms and conditions of parking / If so, whether Respondent entitled to tow vehicle / Whether Applicant was entitled to a refund of tow fee / Held: terms and conditions of parking undisputed / Applicant required to pay parking fee / Applicant did not familiarise herself with parking app, paid for incorrect address / Applicant not entitled to refund of tow fee / Respondent entitled to retain fee / Claim dismissed