You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2016 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

236 items matching your search terms

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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...

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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...

  14. AEJ Ltd v ZVM [2013] NZDT 304 (23 September 2013) [PDF, 56 KB]

    Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s cattle which wandered on highway hit Applicant’s truck / cattle pushed through unsecured boundary gate / truck damaged in collision / issue is whether Respondent took reasonable care to ensure cattle did not stray / held that Respondent failed to take reasonable care as gate was not secured / argument that truck driver contributed to collision is rejected / Respondent ordered to pay $7,523.01 towards repair costs.

  15. AFJ Ltd v ZUM [2013] NZDT 305 (20 September 2013) [PDF, 53 KB]

    Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / sheep owned by Applicant were attacked by dogs, and Respondent’s father accepted their dogs were responsible for the attack / ten days later, another incident occurred and more sheep were attacked and killed / Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim in tort for damage or injury to property, including stock / dog owner may be liable under ordinary common law principles of negligence or s 63(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 / a dog owner is strictly liable for the damage caused by their dog / Held: Respondent’s dogs injured Applicant’s stock / Respondent to pay $6,511.14 for destroyed stock and vet invoices.

  16. ABY v ZYF [2013] NZDT 125 (17 September 2013) [PDF, 58 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased computer from Respondent / computer failed 4 times within 8 weeks / Respondent admits responsibility for one failure, but submits other failures caused by Applicant / Applicant seeks to cancel contract and receive refund of $610.00, including $52.17 for data transfer / Respondent willing to repair computer at no cost, but not to provide refund / while CGA states supplier must be given opportunity to repair goods, the test is reasonableness / 4 failures in 8 weeks renders computer’s failures of a substantial character / Applicant entitled under CGA to reject goods, request refund / entitled to refund of data transfer as of no value without computer / Respondent’s evidence that Applicant’s use caused failures generally, unclear / Respondent liable in terms of its contract and under CGA to refund Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $610.00

  17. ABY v ZYF [2013] NZDT 125 (17 September 2013) [PDF, 47 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased computer from Respondent / computer failed 4 times within 8 weeks / Respondent admits responsibility for one failure, but submits other failures caused by Applicant / Applicant seeks to cancel contract and receive refund of $610.00, including $52.17 for data transfer / Respondent willing to repair computer at no cost, but not to provide refund / while CGA states supplier must be given opportunity to repair goods, the test is reasonableness / 4 failures in 8 weeks renders computer’s failures of a substantial character / Applicant entitled under CGA to reject goods, request refund / entitled to refund of data transfer as of no value without computer / Respondent’s evidence that Applicant’s use caused failures generally, unclear / Respondent liable in terms of its contract and under CGA to refund Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $610.00.

  18. AEH v ZVO [2013] NZDT 229 (17 September 2013) [PDF, 55 KB]

    Contract / oral contract / Respondent had not paid for six taxi rides over a two-year period / verbal contract existed / term that Respondent would pay for taxi and if he did not there would be fees and collection costs added / Respondent failed to pay outstanding fare and associated charges / breach of contract established / Applicant entitled to the recover cost of the fares, “reasonable” account fees and collection costs / Disputes Tribunal filing fee only recoverable in “exceptional circumstances” as set out in the Disputes Tribunal Act / claim for filing fee failed.

  19. AFK v ZUL [2013] NZDT 347 (4 September 2013) [PDF, 57 KB]

    Negligence / Apportioning of damage / Applicant reversed out of car park and was struck by a trailer being towed by the Respondent, who had entered the car park through the “exit” and was passing behind the Applicant as she reversed / Applicant did not see Respondent as she was looking in the direction from which it would be expected cars would come / Held: the Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care when entering the car park through the “exit” / however, the Applicant also had a duty to ensure the way was clear before reversing, and failed to fulfil his duty / the Respondent was primarily responsible for the collision as he was performing an unusual manoeuvre / contribution set at 70 per cent for Respondent and 30 per cent for Applicant / Respondent to pay Applicant $999.75.

  20. AGR v ZTX Ltd [2013] NZDT 309 (2 September 2013) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to restore his car and agreed on a price of $20,000 / Applicant collected the repaired and repainted car to have it certified but failed on 9 issues / noted that repairs were very poorly done and not to a tradesman standard / $9,884.25 of further repairs were necessary to bring it up to certification standard / Applicant claimed that sum from Respondent / Held: Respondent was in breach of contract and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failed to perform the work to an acceptable standard and did not remedy them when notified / Applicant was entitled to have the failure remedied elsewhere / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $9,884.25.

  21. AFV v ZUA Ltd [2013] NZDT 401 (28 August 2013) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill in the supply of services / Applicant engaged Respondent to repair his car’s cam belt / when Applicant received the car back, there were problems and the car was taken back to the Respondent numerous times / Respondent found that it was a radiator problem, which was then replaced / issues persisted so Applicant took car to third party repair shop / it was found oil was leaking due to the cam seals and that a lip on the sealing surface of the cam gear was missed / issue of whether the services provided by the Respondent were below the standard of reasonable care and skill / Held: there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent failed to use reasonable care and skill in providing services to the Applicant / the Applicant’s claim for compensation is dismissed.

  22. AEP v ZVG Ltd [2013] NZDT 337 (28 August 2013) [PDF, 35 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / Applicant contracted with Respondent to move possessions at “owner’s risk”, which included two glass fish tanks, one which cracked on arrival at the destination / Applicant claimed compensation under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply as claims for loss or damage to these goods falls under Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / contract clearly stated that carriage was at owner’s risk and no compensation would be paid for any loss or damage / claim dismissed.

  23. ACV v ZXE [2013] NZDT 213 (26 August 2013) [PDF, 46 KB]

    Contract / Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / Applicant engaged Respondent to move household goods, including motorcycle / when unpacked, motorcycle’s fairing, right-hand mirror and both back blinkers damaged / Applicant claims damage caused by Respondent’s packers forcing motorcycle into truck / claims $1,393.35 to repair damage / Carriage of Goods Act 1979 provides for four categories of contracts / categories outline extent of carrier’s responsibility for damage to goods / category of contract “at owner’s risk” in this case / Respondent only liable if it intentionally caused damage / truck driver who moved Applicant’s goods acted as Respondent’s witness / said motorcycle packed carefully, not forced into truck / damage discovered when truck unloaded, cause unknown / no independent evidence that Respondent forced motorcycle into truck or intentionally damaged it in another way / more likely that damage to motorcycle caused accidentally, not intentionally / therefore, Respondent not liable ...