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. FC Ltd v TN & JM [2021] NZDT 1626 (10 August 2021) [PDF, 188 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted by Respondents to quote for renovation of property through Respondent's son / Applicant advised Respondent’s son 2% charge of sum of work quoted to be paid as deposit, absorbed in cost if quote accepted, payable if not accepted / Asbestos testing required at property for quote / Applicant contracted third party to complete asbestos testing / Respondents were present during testing / Quote provided by Applicant was rejected by Respondents as double the agreed budget / Applicant claims 2% sum of quote and cost of asbestos testing / Whether Respondents liable to pay 2% sum for quote / Whether Respondents liable to pay for asbestos testing / Held: Respondents not liable to pay 2% sum as Respondents did not authorise son to act on their behalf to agree to this charge / Quote provided was well outside of budget / Both parties jointly liable to pay third party costs for asbestos testing / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,167.75

  2. ZD v K Ltd [2021] NZDT 1611 (10 August 2021) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant paid $2000 deposit for car / Respondent sold car to another purchaser / Respondent refused to refund deposit to Applicant / Held: an implied term of the contract that the deposit was refundable / No evidence that deposit was intended as either liquidated damages or as a penalty / Respondent not entitled to cancel contract / Breach of s 33 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent entitled to recover the entire deposit of $2000

  3. EG & GE v QD [2021] NZDT 1608 (10 August 2021) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Parties live at properties which share a boundary / Applicants served Respondent with notice under the Fencing Act / Respondent served an objection to that notice / Applicants seek an order enabling them to construct a fence between the two properties and order Respondent liable for half the cost / Held: not adequate fence between two properties at present / Held: adequate fence between properties a closed boarded fence approximately 1.8 meters height at highest point / Held: quote of $3,535.00 reasonable cost to build adequate fence / Claim allowed / Respondent liable to pay $1,767.50 being half the cost

  4. T Ltd v CS Ors [2021] NZDT 1552 (10 August 2021) [PDF, 236 KB]

    Contract / Sale and Purchase / Tipper Trailer / Second Respondent did not make agreed payments / Trailer released on good faith / No payments received / Fourth Respondent asked for invoice to be transferred to his new company / Invoice reissued / Applicant remained registered owner / Trailer written off in an accident / Part of purchase price paid by insurance company / Applicant claims balance of purchase price / Third Respondent found to be liable for balance of purchase price plus interest

  5. CH v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1617 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 175 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to design, supply and install central heating system and replace plumbing system / Applicant claims heating system not installed correctly / Claiming damages from Respondent / Respondent counterclaims that if Applicant succeeds wants to remove pipes and fittings to make claims against its suppliers / Held: heating system not working as it should / Incorrect and non-recommended fittings were used / Replacement of pipework and fittings at Respondent's cost only fair outcome / Damages of $3,837.68 for costs to date / Damages of $6,197.56 for cost of replacing pipework and fittings / Damages of $4,000.00 for building work / Damages of $9,050.32 for cost of re-gibbing and repainting / Damages of $600.00 to cover cost of re-tiling / Total damages of $23,685.56 / Applicant to provide Respondent pipes and fittings removed from Property within four weeks of their removal / Claim allowed

  6. SH v CO & D Ltd & C Ltd & N Ltd [2021] NZDT 1615 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 237 KB]

    Contract / The Building Act 2004 / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased house from Second Respondent / Respondent Director of Second Respondent / House built and warranty issued by Third Respondent / Applicant claims for defective painting and defective sewer pump / What were terms of contract / Whether the CGA applies to the build / Whether sewer pump fit for purpose / Whether reasonable care and skill exercised in painting and was it fit for purpose / Whether failure to transfer warranty on time / Whether Respondent personally liable / Whether defects covered by warranty / Whether Appellant entitled to relief / Held: both the Builder under the Project Management contract and the developer are liable for any breach of implied statutory warranty under the Building Act concerning any failure to exercise reasonable care and skill in providing painting service / Held: sewer pump is a good under the CGA / Must be of acceptable quality and fit for purpose under ss 6 and 8 CGA...

  7. CL v BK [2021] NZDT 1612 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out mechanical work on boat engine / New oil pump required / Applicant collected boat understanding it was fully repaired / Engine seized when used as oil pump had not been reconnected / Damage the result of a miscommunication from Respondent / Whether Respondent had legal liability for miscommunication / Held: Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in communication of the repair work he had done / Held: Applicant entitled to $2,000 for value of engine and cost of labour for replacing engine under s 32(c) of the Consumer Guarantees Act

  8. SQ v MN Inc [2021] NZDT 1472 (8 August 2021) [PDF, 189 KB]

    Conversion / Animal Welfare Act 1999 / Damages / Applicant’s cat went missing / Cat was found, passed on to Respondent, and adopted by a new family from Respondent / Respondent approached adoptive family to return cat, they refused / Applicant seeks an order for return of cat / Held: Respondent liable to Applicant for conversion of cat / Section 141 of the AWA does not apply to Respondent as they do not qualify as an approved organisation under the Act / Respondent did not take reasonable steps to find owner / Third party has possession of cat / Applicant did not wish to pursue third person, did not want damages and did not want another cat / Claim dismissed

  9. SD v IE & DE [2021] NZDT 1588 (5 August 2021) [PDF, 262 KB]

    Contract / Applicant sold property to Respondents / Sale and purchase agreement conditional on toxicology report obtained by Respondents / On settlment the parties agreed $40,000 would be held back pending rectification and redecoration works to be completed by Applicant by set date / Rectification and redecoration works not completed by set date / Retention sum paid to Respondents / Applicant claims repayment of retention sum less estimated cost to install carpet / Held: Applicant does not have any grounds to seek refund of retention sum / Claim dismissed

  10. BX v PN Ltd & NN Ltd [2021] NZDT 1575 (5 August 2021) [PDF, 215 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Guarantee goods of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased boat from Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with boat emailing Respondent describing the problem and claiming a refund under the CGA as he had lost confidence in saftey of boat / Respondent inspected boat and found nothing wrong with factory workmanship, advised manufacturer would supply replacement boat / Applicant claims refund of purchase price of boat plus freight costs and compensation for loss of use of boat / Held: problem with boat more likely than not a manufacturing issue / Held: problem does not render boat unsafe, not a substantial failue that renders boat unfit for purpose / Claim dismissed

  11. TX v SM [2021] NZDT 1574 (5 August 2021) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased puppy from respondent for $3,000 / Puppy required multiple surgeries / Applicant's insurance company paid $15,000 to applicant under pet insurance policy / Applicant claimed $30,000 for puppy's treatment and loss of income / Respondent offered to take puppy back / Applicant declined offer, respondent elected to refund the purchase price / Whether respondent made false or misleading representations to applicant about puppy, inducing her to enter into the contract / Whether puppy was of acceptable qualilty / What remedy, if any, was available to applicant / Held: no misrepresentation established / Failure of guarantee of acceptable quality of puppy / Given extent of puppy's problems, failure of substantial character / Applicant already been refunded purchase price / Applicant did not establish she suffered initial treatment and diagnosis costs that were not covered by insurance / No further remedy available / Outcome: claim dismissed.

  12. BC v KG [2021] NZDT 1592 (4 August 2021) [PDF, 178 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had Respondent lay concrete for him but was unhappy with result / Respondent undertook repairs including grinding back contract and applying tinted sealer to surface / Applicant is still unhappy with work and claims $19,658.15 from Respondent which is the cost that has been quoted to remove and re-lay the concrete / Held: concrete work not undertaken with reasonable care and skill, not acceptable and fit for purpose under CGA / Held: appropriate remedy is a full refund of the amount paid for the work / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $7,463.69 to Applicant

  13. KT & OX & SX v P Ltd [2021] NZDT 1614 (4 August 2021) [PDF, 164 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to carry out electrical work for water pump on new water bore in 2017 / Applicants had ongoing problems with pump which burnt out in 2020 / Applicants claimed Respondents made various mistakes in electrical work resulting in the pump failing / Applicants claimed damages of $6,200.80 from Respondents / Whether subcontractors damaged the pipes / Whether Applicants were charged for incorrect cable and correct cable, if so should some or all costs be refunded / Whether Respondent used wrong type of flex to extend pump lead / Whether Respondent did not carry out services with reasonable care and skill and/or whether the services/product reasonably fit for purpose under ss 28, 29 CGA / Whether Applicants entitled to remedy / Respondent agreed subcontractors damaged pipe / Held: Respondent should have replaced incorrectly installed cable without charge / Incorrect flex used / Respondent failed to carry out services with r...

  14. SM v CT [2020] NZDT 1432 (4 August 2020) [PDF, 223 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Applicant purchased a vehicle from the Respondent for $3,400.00 / Respondent had purchased the vehicle from a friend / A finance company had a security interest registered over the vehicle / Finance company repossessed the vehicle as money was still owing / Respondent claimed he did not know money was owing when he purchased the vehicle / Applicant claiming $4,00.00 from Respondent / Whether the Respondent breached the contract of sale with the Applicant / What remedy was the Applicant entitled to / Held: Implied condition and warranties had been breached / Respondent did not have the right to sell the vehicle to the Applicant whether he knew there was a security interest or not / Applicant did not enjoy quiet possession of the vehicle / Applicant was entitled to damages for the breach of a warranty / Measure of damages was the estimated loss resulting from the breach / Damage was the price the Applicant paid to the Respondent / Applica...

  15. OX v SN [2021] NZDT 1581 (3 August 2021) [PDF, 153 KB]

    Consumers Guarantees Act 1983 (CGA) / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Applicant purchased jet ski from Respondent / Applicant discovered jet ski had issues after using and claims refund of purchase price and cost of repairs, WOF on trailer and mileage for travel to jet ski dealer / Held: CGA applies to sale, Respondent as supplier in trade has obligations under CGA / Held: jet ski not of acceptable quality, not free from minor defects, not durable and not fit for a purpose a reasonable consumer would find acceptable /  Held: failure of a substantial character, Applicant entitled to reject jet ski and entitled to refund / Held: Applicant entitled to compensation for cost of repair, trailer WOF and transport of jet ski. Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $17,056.23 to Applicant / Respondent to arrange collection of jet ski

  16. XI v N Ltd & T Ltd [2021] NZDT 1603 (3 August 2021) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant had pacemaker implanted in China / Experienced health issues during trip to New Zealand / Pacemaker replaced by New Zealand company at no cost / Applicant claimed other medical expenses / Insurance company denied claim for medical cover / Whether Consumer Guarantees Acts applies / Held: Act does not apply as goods supplied outside of NZ / Whether insurance company liable for medical expenses / Held: Insurance company not liable as contract entered into after first medical event / Claim dismissed

  17. NL v EU & TJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1589 (2 August 2021) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Collision occurred when Respondent was passing a truck and Applicant exited driveway onto road / Applicant claimed $5,000 from Respondent / Respondent’s insurer counter-claimed $8,317.85 from Applicant / Which party caused the collision / Whether Respondent contributed to the collision / Whether costs claimed reasonable / Held: it is more likely than not that Respondent caused collision / Applicant failed to give way to a vehicle on the roadway when he exited the driveway in breach of legislation / Respondent created situation with risk / Applicant beared greater responsibility and respective liability assessed as 80:20 / Costs accepted and proved reasonable / Applicant liable for 80% of Respondent’s loss / Applicant ordered to pay $4,312.13 to Respondent / Claim and counter-claim allowed

  18. KM v TE [2021] NZDT 1619 (30 July 2021) [PDF, 264 KB]

    Contract / Applicant worked as associate salesperson to Respondent at real estate agency / Parties had verbal agreement about commission and payments recorded in text / Other remuneration agreement from agency also signed by parties / Applicant claims Respondent did not pay commission and other payments correctly / Held: Property 3 buyer recorded in system as Respondent’s buyer / Commission paid correctly based on agreement / Held: parties agreed that Respondent should not have deducted tax from GST part of commission and this will be paid / Held: Applicant has not proved they shared Property 6, 7 and 9 listings with Respondent / Helping with listing does not make it a joint one and Applicant did not deal with vendors / Applicant helped with more than set out in text agreement / Fair and reasonable to pay Applicant for this work / Held: Property 9 also not joint listing and Applicant paid for other work / Held: Applicant owed payment for work on Properties 10, 11, 12 and 13 / Immateria...

  19. EO v BD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1599 (30 July 2021) [PDF, 198 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant ordered vinyl planks with woodgrain effect from Respondent based on sample plank / After floor laid Applicant noticed ‘cross-marks’ which she believed were a fault / Applicant raised issue with Respondent who contacted supplier / Respondent confirmed with supplier that ‘cross-marks’ not a flaw and declined liability / Applicant claims $750.00 as reduction in value / Held: vinyl planks supplied did not correspond with sample in quality / Held: claimed amount of 50% reduction in value reasonable compensation for failure / Section 18(3) of CGA gives consumer right to reject goods and obtain compensation for reduction in value / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $750 to Applicant

  20. BE v TU Ltd [2021] NZDT 1568 (29 July 2021) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Applicant’s car was towed from a private parking area / Applicant claimed $320.00 for refund of towing fee stating the signage was unclear/ Applicant also argued the cost of towing was disproportionate / Whether the respondent was entitled to tow the applicant’s car / If so, was the cost justified / Held: applicant failed to prove that the respondent was not permitted to tow his car / Towing fee not unreasonable / cost to tow a car from point to point is significantly less than the cost to provide a service to the landowner / claim dismissed.

  21. D Ltd & KN & PB v QD [2021] NZDT 1622 (28 July 2021) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Parties share an adjoining property boundary / Applicants wanted hedge between properties removed and wood paling fence erected instead / Respondents did not agree / Applicant removed tree on boundary and sprayed herbicide on stump / Herbicide was sprayed on section of boundary hedge which then died / Parties have agreed new fence is necessary / Whether Applicant’s poisoning of part of fence affects or displaces normal rule requiring neighbours to contribute equally to cost of adequate boundary fence / Held: hedge was not adequate fence even before poisoning / Poisoning not cause of need to erect new fence / Respondent should not be relieved of obligation to contribute to new fence / Respondent ordered to pay $1373.10 to Applicant / Respondent also ordered to pay $615.00 as ordered after previous hearing / Claim allowed

  22. DU & HU c/- V Trust v UT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1591 (28 July 2021) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Duty of Care / Remedy / Applicants hired Respondent to install new heat pump in property / Applicants have not paid outstanding balance for work completed as not satisfied with aspects of job and claim Respondent’s tradesperson broke letterbox / Applicants claim $250 for repair of wall and letterbox / Held: damage to wall not done during installation / Applicants not entitled to remedy in relation to wall / Held: Respondent’s tradesperson owed a duty of care to Applicants to take reasonable care not to damage letterbox / Applicants entitled to remedy in relation to damaged letterbox / Claim allowed in part / Applicants awarded damages of $250.00 / Applicants to pay Respondents outstanding balance less damages

  23. HF v IU Ltd [2021] NZDT 1566 (28 July 2021) [PDF, 198 KB]

    Contract / Flight tickets / Applicant was entitled to be reimbursed for expenses for employment related education during his employment / Reimbursement could be used to cover the cost of conferences and travel / Applicant booked flights for an overseas conference through the respondent / Conference and flights cancelled / Applicant asked the respondent to hold his airfares as credit / Airline issued refunds which the respondent credited back to the Applicant’s employer travelcard / Applicant was only made aware of the refund when he was no longer able to use the money for the original purpose / Applicant claimed $6,425.00 for airfares / Who did the respondent contract with for the flights / Whether the applicant was entitled to any remedy for the respondent’s failure to keep a credit or to inform him of the refund / Held: contract for travel was between the respondent and the applicant’s employer / Applicant was not a party to the contract / No breach of contract in relation to the ref...