You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2018 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

255 items matching your search terms

  1. AP v ZK and ZKZ Insurance Ltd [2014] NZDT 565 (28 May 2014) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Tort / Rylands v Fletcher / Respondent had a fire on their farm which burnt part of a boundary fence of Applicant who were neighbours / Applicant claimed $12,320 for lost deer and $400 labour costs / Held: likely that deer escaped through hole in the fence / Applicant credible and gave consistent and thorough evidence / delay creates challenges on the evidence but right to bring claim still exists / alleged number of lost deer discounted for uncertainties / values attributed to lost deer / claim allowed, First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,660.

  2. AD v ZW and ZWZ [2014] NZDT 592 (27 May 2014) [PDF, 34 KB]

    Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / unhappy dispute between family members over the father’s home care and burial after his death / Applicant claimed for legal costs incurred and reimbursement for care she provided to the father / Held: claim for legal costs cannot be established or proven / claim for reimbursement also not established / legal costs were Applicant’s choice to incur / no jurisdiction to award general damages for stress / no evidence of payments other than medical costs and clear Applicant did not expect reimbursement / claim dismissed.

  3. AR v ZI ZIZ Ltd [2014] NZDT 574 (26 May 2014) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Contract / Applicants engaged First respondent to represent them in a personal grievance claim / Applicant claimed refund of $287.50 paid and $1,500 for costs they had to pay / Held: parties to the contract were Applicant and First Respondent / no written contract / doctrine of undisclosed principal applies because at the time Applicant met with First Respondent, it appeared they were dealing with him personally / parties agree that $287.50 was paid for First Respondent to file a statement of problem with the ERA which he did / contract came to end when liquidation of former employer / not established new contract was formed / in failing to file submissions in accordance with deadline set by the ERA, First Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable care and skill / award of costs against Applicant given First Respondent’s failure to file anything by deadline was entirely predictable / claim allowed, First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,500.

  4. CB v XY [2014] NZDT 691 (23 May 2014) [PDF, 11 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent which was then repossessed under an undisclosed security interest / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply as transaction involves two individuals not in trade / person who sells a good cannot transfer a better title / neither can the seller deprive a person who has a prior registered security over the car that right by selling the car / s 14 Sale of Goods Act protects the buyer in this situation and entitles him to rescind the contract for breach of an implied condition that rights transferred should be unencumbered / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,800.

  5. BE v YV [2014] NZDT 558 (22 May 2014) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Contract / Applicant paid $20,000 into bank account of ABC Ltd by way of a loan and also paid over $13,000 directly to ABC’s suppliers / Respondent was director of ABC, which has ceased trading and is being removed from Companies Register / Applicant claimed $15,000 from Respondent / Held: not persuaded loans were made to Respondent or that Respondent was personally liable, moneys were paid directly into ABC’s bank account and to its suppliers / appears Respondent was acting on behalf of ABC in his role as director / loans were made to the company and the obligation to repay rests on the company rather than Respondent personally / verbal agreement to guarantee ABC’s debts would be unenforceable / no jurisdiction to hear claim for breach of Companies Act 1993 / claim dismissed.

  6. DG v YT Ltd [2014] NZDT 566 (19 May 2014) [PDF, 157 KB]

    Contract / insurance / Applicant’s daughter (BB) collided with a truck whilst performing a u-turn in their car / Applicant sought cover for this loss under their policy with Respondent however it declined on grounds that BB was in breach of her licence conditions at the time of collision / Applicant sought order that they be indemnified under their policy / Held: s 11 Insurance Law Reform Act 1977 / BB was in breach of her restricted licence because she had two friends in the car / collision occurred because BB performed u-turn in front of an oncoming truck and failed to see it / Applicant has onus of establishing BB’s decision to carry passengers without supervision probably did not cause or contribute to her error / extensive research and submissions provided by Applicant canvassed at length / cannot say it is probable BB was simply inexperienced and not affected by her passengers / claim dismissed.

  7. BW v YD Ltd [2014] NZDT 693 (6 May 2014) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent as property manager and agent for her rental property / problems developed with the tenant and a 90 days’ notice was issued but Respondent overlooked expiry of that notice and allowed the tenant to remain in the property / Applicant claimed $2,626.95 compensation / Held: do not accept it would protect Respondent if Applicant does not receive rent or property damage occurs by Respondent not performing its obligations under the contract / if Respondent had enforced the termination notice rental loss would not have been incurred / Respondent was not providing its services with reasonable care and skill causing additional loss to Applicant / additional costs claimed by Applicant would have been incurred by Applicant in any event and for her account / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $436.19.

  8. AG Ltd v ZT Ltd [2014] NZDT 607 (6 May 2014) [PDF, 23 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant agreed to hire a stand to Respondent at a large event but it achieved less than half of the sales anticipated / Respondent claimed Applicant misrepresented the number of people that would attend the show / Held: Applicant did not misrepresent the number of people that would attend the show / representations made by Applicant not misrepresentations and were factually correct statements based on Applicant’s past experience and not future representations / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,144.25.

  9. BG Ltd v YT [2014] NZDT 603 (29 April 2014) [PDF, 218 KB]

    Contract / breach of contract / non-maintained operating lease / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) / Credit (Repossession) Act 1997 (C(R)A) / Personal Property and Securities Act 1999 (PPSA) / Applicant and Respondent entered operating lease for car / Respondent would make weekly payments to Applicant and retain car at end of lease period / Applicant alleges Respondent in arrears / seeks $2,685 compensation for breach of contract including arrears, repossession cost and difference in assessed market value versus received wreck value / Respondent denies liability and claims she advised Applicant could no longer afford to proceed with agreement / issue of whether agreement is a consumer credit contract although it’s declared an operating lease in its text / Held: lease is a consumer lease under s 60(1) CCCFA but is qualified by s 60(2) / lease falls within s 16(1) meaning lease should be treated as a credit sale and consumer credit con...

  10. AQ v ZJ [2014] NZDT 562 (16 April 2014) [PDF, 74 KB]

    Contract / parties had a verbal agreement for the sale and purchase of lucerne bales at $95 per bale, to be paid for by Respondent by direct credit when bales were uplifted / Applicant claimed $1,710 being 18 bales at $95 / Held: it was a term of the contract that Respondent agreed to purchase 32 bales / both parties agreed bales had to be of good quality / 32 bales were uplifted by Respondent / total of $1,635 has been paid to Applicant / Respondent has not paid for 32 bales and therefore breached the contract / Applicant entitled to payment for 32 bales less $1,635 / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,405.

  11. AB Ltd v ZY [2014] NZDT 589 (4 March 2014) [PDF, 33 KB]

    Consumer / Credit (Repossession) Act 1997 / parties entered into loan agreement for Respondent’s purchase of car / Applicant claimed Respondent defaulted and issued pre-repossession notice / Respondent then returned car on the same day / Applicant claimed compensation for loss after having repaired car and sold it / Held: where car is returned without prior agreement because debtor is no longer able or willing to continue with the finance contract, the creditor is entitled to see this as repudiation by the debtor and as an instruction to sell the car / creates obligation to deduct proceeds of sale from amount owing under contract and reasonable cost incurred in respect of the sale / Applicant did not give post-possession notice as required by s 20 and deprived Respondent the opportunity to re-assess decision / unable to accept charge for repair costs / allowance for preparing car for resale appropriate / claim allowed (in part), Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $384.87.

  12. BX and ABC Ltd v YC [2014] NZDT 602 (3 March 2014) [PDF, 129 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was riding his motorbike and while overtaking two cars collided with Respondent who was turning right / Applicant claimed $15,000 for loss suffered / Held: driving on the road gives rise to a statutory duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / s 8 Land Transport Act 1988 / various factors to be taken into account to establish whether there is a lack of reasonable care in any particular case / even if Applicant did partly encroach the flush median this did not cause the accident / cause of the accident was Respondent placing his vehicle in the path of Applicant’s motorbike when he made the right turn / Respondent failed to take reasonable care to ascertain whether any other vehicle was approaching from his right / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s Insurer $15,000.

  13. CS v XI & XIX 2014 NZDT 798 (27 February 2014) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant’s insurance company claimed against First Respondent for repairs / First Respondent counterclaimed against Second Respondent for necessary repairs, as driver of Applicant’s car / Held: while Tribunal placed little weight on First Respondent’s admission of liability, not persuaded that accident caused by Second Respondent / First Respondent failed to take sufficient care while driving / costs claimed were actual and reasonable / claim allowed, First Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $4,855.85 / First Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

  14. AX Ltd v ZC Ltd [2014] NZDT 673 (27 February 2014) [PDF, 29 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased a subdivided section and was charged a fixed daily fee for wastewater by Respondent / in 2013 Applicant wanted water supplied and applied for connection to Respondent’s water and wastewater network and was charged an Infrastructure Growth Charge (IGC) / Applicant claimed it should not have to pay Respondent / Held: terms provide that Respondent may levy an IGC / Respondent conceded that it did not levy IGC’s where an equivalent contribution had been made in the past / no evidence a contribution for water and/or wastewater infrastructure has previously been paid / claim dismissed, Applicant liable for charge levied by Respondent.

  15. DO Ltd v VL [2014] NZDT 426 (11 February 2014) [PDF, 142 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), s 28 / Valuers Act 1948, s 11(2) /  reasonable care and skill / Respondent engaged Applicant to value two properties / Respondent used both reports to obtain finance / Respondent paid part of the valuation price for one property but not the other as had issues with the work done on both properties / Applicant claims $970, compromising unpaid $920 and debt collection costs of $50 / Held: Respondents complaints can be considered by way of set-off as the two valuations were arranged under one contract / Applicant failed to take reasonable care and skill over some minor detail and description of properties / Applicant breached high standards of professionalism expected under contract by not consulting with Respondent before telling real estate agent about inaccuracies concerning size of property on advertisement / failure to consult amounts to damages for injured feelings, which are generally regarded as too remote in breach of contract / no e...

  16. AGA v ZVV Ltd [2014] NZDT 386 (10 February 2014) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Sale of Goods Act 1908 / goods bought by description / Applicant purchased a mini chipper/shredder from the Respondent / on two occasions the machine broke down and returned to the Respondent / Respondent found that the machine was missing a part / Applicant requested a refund / issue of whether goods bought by description have an implied condition that the goods are of merchantable quality / Respondent argued the store policy states that no warranty is offered and caveat emptor applies / Held: there must be an express agreement that the implied conditions of the Sale of Goods Act 1908 does not apply / the machine was not of merchantable quality at the point of sale / Respondent is to pay $1,000.00 to the Applicant being the purchase price of the machine.

  17. AGD Ltd v ZVT Ltd and ZVS [2014] NZDT 394 (23 January 2014) [PDF, 74 KB]

    Contract / Applicant provided refrigeration advice and services to the Respondents / Applicant and Respondents agreed the new evaporator was not working / Applicant agreed to re-install the old evaporator at no cost to the Respondents / Applicant kept the new evaporator / when it came time to pay the Applicant, the Respondents withheld $3,000 from the total amount charged, stating that this reflected the cost of the new evaporator retained by the Applicant / issue of whether Applicant’s fees should be reduced for the cost of the evaporator and any installation costs / Held: the Applicant failed to supply the evaporator, and retained ownership and possession of it, so is not entitled to the payment for the evaporator / cost of evaporator is to be deducted from the $3,000 / Applicant is entitled to the remainder payment of $1,462.05 for the pipe work.

  18. AFW and AFX v ZVY Insurance Ltd [2014] NZDT 404 (20 January 2014) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicants had a house insurance policy with the Respondent / Applicants’ insurance policy did not include contents insurance / Applicants’ carpet suffered flood damage and claimed for replacement under house insurance policy / issue of whether the house insurance policy included carpet replacement / Respondent argued carpet was not part of insurance policy as it was not “permanently fixed” / Held: the carpet was “permanently fixed” and is part of the house insurance policy / Respondent is to pay $6,496.00 to Applicants for the replacement of carpet. 

  19. AGS v ZTW [2013] NZDT 491 (15 January 2014) [PDF, 21 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a hover mower from Respondent / mower ran unevenly and was difficult to start so Applicant returned it for repairs / after receiving it back it ran no better and was returned again / 6-8 weeks later when Respondent attempted to return the mower Applicant rejected it and requested a full refund / Applicant claimed for repairs to their old mower, purchase price of the hover mower and the filing fee / Held: mower is not of acceptable quality / ongoing problems with starting and running that are intermittent / supported by evidence from a lawnmower shop owner who inspected the mower / issues and length of time they occurred mean the failures are of a substantial character / Applicant entitled to reject the mower under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and entitled to full refund but not repair costs (of old mower) or filing fee / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $988.

  20. AGQ v ZTY [2013] NZDT 355 (6 January 2014) [PDF, 25 KB]

    Contract / unconscionable bargains / parties were involved in a traffic accident and it was agreed that Respondent’s manoeuvre caused the accident / at the scene the parties agreed that Respondent would buy Applicant’s car for $1,000 as compensation / Applicant soon realised that it was a very poor deal but car had already been sold to a wrecker / Applicant claimed to have the agreement set aside and sought compensation / Held: agreement is of no effect / unconscionable for Respondent to take the benefit of the bargain agreed between parties / significant imbalance of consideration / Applicant was in shock or stress, was outnumbered and unadvised / Respondent liable to pay Applicant for value of car or cost of repairs / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,600.

  21. AGJ and AGK v ZVL [2013] NZDT 500 (18 December 2013) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Nuisance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / counter claim for costs under s 43 / Applicants claim Respondent is responsible for excess water flows on their property which have caused damage / Respondent counterclaimed for costs that he has unnecessarily incurred in defending claim / Held: Occupiers of land must accept water flowing naturally on to their land from higher ground / Respondent has not gone beyond what is deemed natural water run-off / Applicants’ claim is frivolous due to limitation period and is dismissed / Respondent’s counterclaim is granted / Applicants are to pay Respondent $793.50.

  22. AGO v ZVE [2013] NZDT 371 (12 December 2013) [PDF, 68 KB]

    Contract / verbal contract / implied terms / Applicant was the flatmate of Respondent / Applicant left after one month / Applicant claims Respondent owes a refund of $180.00 being one week’s rent paid in advance / Respondent argued no notice was given / verbal agreement did not include a notice period / issue is whether Respondent is liable to refund any rent to Applicant / Held: terms can be implied into a contract where the contract is silent or not clear / Applicant should have given at least one week’s notice / Respondent is entitled to keep $180.00 being one week’s rent in lieu of notice / Applicant’s claim is dismissed.

  23. BD Ltd v YW [2013] NZDT 654 (28 November 2013) [PDF, 114 KB]

    Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant claimed $5,202.37 in respect of goods it supplied to a company now in liquidation (ABC) / claimed Respondent is liable for that debt pursuant to a personal guarantee / Held: in general a contract does not need to be in writing but an important exception applies under s 27 Property Law Act 2007 in respect of a guarantee / existence of supply contract nor fact that Respondent signed the credit application and purported guarantee document not denied / terms of guarantee document determinative of obligations undertaken and careful consideration of those terms required to establish whether the guarantor is liable / careful reading of terms of purported guarantee shows that Respondent is guaranteeing his own debt to Applicant and not ABC’s debt / unable to read into document an undertaking by Respondent to accept liability for debts of ABC / claim dismissed.

  24. BK v YP Ltd [2013] NZDT 422 (25 November 2013) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Contract / Applicant withdrew $6,300 from his bank account with Respondent but says he wanted to withdraw $3,300 and trusted Respondent so he did not check the amount before giving it to a builder / Applicant claimed $3,000 Respondent gave him in error / Held: on the balance of probabilities Respondent believed Applicant had asked to withdraw $6,300 from his account / Applicant received $6,300 / having received the money Applicant was in a position to confirm the amount before handing it to the builder / Applicant failed to prove that Respondent was negligent in handing more money than Applicant believed he had asked for and in not checking the amount while in his possession Applicant has been the cause of any loss suffered / claim dismissed.