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

247 items matching your search terms

  1. 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...

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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. 

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. BL Ltd v YO [2013] NZDT 417 (22 November 2013) [PDF, 107 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted with Respondent for 4 pages of advertising in their magazine, the following day Respondent called to rescind the contract / Applicant claimed $3,570.75 being the contract price plus interest against Respondent in her personal capacity / Held: more likely than not that Respondent was signing the contract as an agent for ABC Ltd and that Applicant had implied knowledge of this through the knowledge of their staff member / general rule about agency  is where agent does not disclose that it is signing for another party then an intention that they are the contracting party shall more readily be inferred / claim dismissed.

  18. EK v UP [2013] NZDT 751 (19 November 2013) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent’s 13 year old daughter drove her 22 year old sister’s car into the Applicant’s wooden wall / Respondent agreed he was responsible and paid $500 towards the repair costs / Respondent was made redundant so could not pay any more money towards the repair costs / Applicant claimed remaining repair costs of $2994.40 / Held: parents may have a duty to control a child known to have a reckless disposition / Respondent could not have foreseen his daughter driving in a carpark and causing damage / actions of Respondent’s daughter were uncharacteristic of her and she was in the care of another adult at the time / no reason for Respondent to take particular precautionary measures to prevent his daughter’s behaviour / Respondent not negligent and not liable to pay the costs claimed / claim dismissed.

  19. AFF v ZUP [2013] NZDT 350 (19 November 2013) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $4,400 in a private sale / transmission failed and quote for repairs was between $3,000 and $3,500 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Fair Trading Act 1976 do not apply to private sales, so Applicant required to establish a misrepresentation under the CRA / Held: a reasonable person reading the advertisement would have considered the car to be in excellent condition, so a misrepresentation existed / the Applicant relied on the statement and therefore the misrepresentation induced the purchase / the Applicant would be unable to receive a refund on the purchase price under the CRA and was limited to damages / if the full $3000--$3,500 was to be awarded there would be significant betterment to the Applicants, as they would receive a significantly more valuable car / found that the existing transmission was two thirds used, so the loss was about $1,000 / Respondent to pay Applicant total of $1,200.

  20. AFG and AFH v ZUO [2013] NZDT 351 (17 November 2013) [PDF, 56 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act / guarantee as to fitness for purpose / Applicants purchased from the Respondent a powder-covered fence to install around their swimming pool / within 18 months the powder coating started to deteriorate with swelling on the fence / Respondent had failed to tell Applicant that the warranty for powder-coated galvanised products did not apply when product used in “high corrosion” areas, such as around a salt water pool / Held: the brochure the Respondent gave the Applicants failed to state the conditions of the warranty / by knowing the warranty would not apply, and failing to pass this on to the Applicants, the Respondent had failed to carry out their services with reasonable skill and care / Applicants gave Respondent the opportunity to remedy and it did not do so / Applicants entitled to obtain all reasonable costs associated with the remedy / Respondent to pay Applicants $3,120.00, being the cheaper of the two quotes to have the powder coating stripped from the...

  21. BJ Ltd v YQ Ltd YQY [2013] NZDT 416 (11 November 2013) [PDF, 69 KB]

    Contract / Applicant received telecommunication services from Respondent and signed new contract for a further 24 months / cancelled contract before 24 months had expired and Respondent applied cancellation charges / Applicant claimed service had been poor, they were not getting market leading rates and charges applied are excessive / Held: Applicant has invalidly cancelled contract / total lack of evidence pointing towards any attempt by Applicant to bring Respondent’s attention to any problems / cancellation rates were made available to Applicant as part of contract terms and conditions, rates applied not harsh, do not amount to penalties and are fair reflection of cost of cancelling a commercial contract / no basis to set cancellation costs aside / claim dismissed.

  22. BI v YR Inc [2013] NZDT 439 (25 October 2013) [PDF, 13 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Applicant claimed penalties and legal costs arising from non-payment of body corporate levies / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to body corporate levies as they are “money due under an enactment” (Unit Titles Act) / s 11(7) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / fact that new claim is for penalties and legal costs do not bring it into jurisdiction because the original cause of action is still the same / claim struck out.

  23. AGI Ltd v ZVN Ltd and ZVM [2013] NZDT 423 (25 October 2013) [PDF, 57 KB]

    Contract / breach of contract / sale of goods / First Respondent contracted with Applicant for the supply of confectionary products / Second Respondent provided Applicant with a personal guarantee of payment / Applicant sent product and invoices to First Respondent but never received payment / Respondents claim the products were not acceptable due to the expiration dates / issue of whether Respondents breached the contract / Held: Respondents breached the contract / Respondents did not provide evidence that they raised concerns about expiration dates to the Applicant / Respondents did not reject the product within a reasonable time / Respondents are to pay Applicant $7,008.25.

  24. ACN v ZXR Ltd [2013] NZDT 115 (26 September 2013) [PDF, 73 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 (SGA), Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (CRA) and Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased a tractor from Respondent on a trading website / Applicant did not inspect tractor before purchase but relied on advertisement and photo / before purchase, Respondent’s employee reported that the tractor was in “very tidy condition” and carried out its 1200-hour service as it had not been done / on delivery, Applicant noticed various faults and problems with the tractor and claimed damages for breach of contract / Held: Applicant had relied on Respondent’s representations and was induced to enter into the contract by them / hydraulics were not functioning properly at time of delivery thus Respondent’s representation was incorrect and amounted to misrepresentation / 1200-hour service was not carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner / description in the advertisement were misrepresentations under s 6(1) CRA and s 13(a) FTA / damage for indicators, armre...