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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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...

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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...

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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 ...

  19. ACU Ltd v ZXG Ltd and ZXF [2013] NZDT 210 (19 August 2013) [PDF, 73 KB]

    Tort / Personal Property Securities Act 1999 / conversion / WY and QY took out loan and security agreement with Applicants / Security interest (SI) created in respect of two vehicles registered in the NZ Personal Property Securities Register by the Applicant / Respondent purchased vehicle subject to SI / WY and QY failed to make repayments, Applicant sought to repossess vehicle in Respondent’s possession / Respondent refuses to release vehicle / Applicant makes claim for $6,806.27 being amount owed on the loan and security agreement / Held: Applicant has a registered SI enforceable against a third party (the Respondent) who may claim rights in the vehicle thus Applicant is entitled to repossess the vehicle from Respondent / Respondent is liable for tort of conversion / on the evidence, Respondent had intention to deprive Applicant of its rights of possession to the vehicle / Applicant entitled to damages / Applicant suffered loss as a result of conversion as it was unable to recover th...

  20. AGT Ltd v ZTV [2012] NZDT 437 (8 August 2013) [PDF, 75 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Companies Act 1993 / Applicant company claimed for a payment due for services provided pursuant to a building contract / Respondent counter-claimed for deficiencies in the service requiring remedial work / Applicant company is in voluntary liquidation / Held: Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear proceedings without liquidator’s consent / Companies Act 1993 provides that when a company is in liquidation, no legal proceeding can be commenced or continued unless the liquidator agrees or the High Court orders otherwise / claim dismissed.

  21. AER & AES v ZVD Ltd & ZVC [2013] NZDT 259 (8 August 2013) [PDF, 70 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Second Respondent operates a mortgage and insurance broking business and arranged contents insurance for First Applicant who had two properties / extreme weather event flooded Property A damaging most of First Applicant’s belongings / insurer declined cover because policy was only for Property B / Applicants claimed that they were wrongly informed that both properties were covered and cancelled existing insurance in reliance on this advice / Held: there can be no claim against First Respondent as it is a separate legal entity from Second Respondent and thus no legal relationship existed / Second Respondent’s evidence inconsistent with statement in his email therefore found to have told First Applicant that contents would be covered at both properties / Second Respondent breached guarantee as to reasonable care and skill under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to p...

  22. AET Ltd v ZVB Ltd [2013] NZDT 196 (3 August 2013) [PDF, 54 KB]

    Contract / Construction Contracts Act 2003 / Applicant supplied and fixed sealant to the joints in Respondent’s building / Respondent paid 75 per cent of invoice but refused to pay remainder as it found the sealant in one joint was not deep enough and believed it was not applied to the correct depth in other parts of the building / Applicant remedied problem by applying more sealant to that joint / Applicant claimed outstanding sum plus interest and costs / Held: there is no evidence that parties intended payment to be subject to the Construction Contracts Act 2003 / Applicant breached contract as it was an implied term that the sealant would be applied to the correct depth and fixed this / onus was on Respondent, not Applicant, to show that other joints in the building were similarly affected or that the work was not carried out properly but did not provide evidence to show this / Respondent had no good reason to withhold payment / costs and interest not awarded / claim allowed (in pa...

  23. ACR v ZXL and ZXK [2013] NZDT 140 (2 August 2013) [PDF, 75 KB]

    Tort / negligence / multiple nose-to-tail collision in queue of cars caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed costs from sale of damaged vehicle, which are significantly lower than assessed repair costs / Tribunal finds Second Respondent failed to stop in time causing first collision on Applicant’s car / this then caused First Respondent to hit Second Respondent’s car causing second collision / Tribunal held both respondents liable for the claim / First Respondent liable for 40 per cent of claim; second respondent liable for 60 per cent / claim allowed – First Respondent and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,979.38 and $5,969.07, respectively.

  24. AGN v ZVH, ZVG and ZVF Ltd as trustees of LN Trust [2013] NZDT 467 (23 July 2013) [PDF, 57 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill in the supply of services / counter claim / duty to mitigate loss / Respondent engaged the services of Applicant to lay vinyl in a commercial premise / a number of problems occurred including lack of materials which delayed other building projects / Applicant completed the job and invoiced Respondent / Respondent has refused to pay / Applicant has claimed for $1,000.00 for the invoiced amount / Respondent counter claimed for $15,000.00 for loss of trading, stress and humiliation, loss of time and administration costs / Held: Applicant failed to carry out the service with reasonable care and skill / Respondent has suffered a loss but failed to mitigate potential loss / Respondent failed to prove loss amount / Both claims are dismissed.