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

248 items matching your search terms

  1. 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...

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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 ...

  12. 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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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...

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. AFQ v ZUG t/a PA [2013] NZDT 346 (18 July 2013) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Contract / bailment / Respondent agreed to sell the Applicant’s militaria collection and was to take 20 per cent commission on sales / Respondent had sold only two groups of items when the Respondent’s van was burgled / Applicant claimed for value of lost items, and parties agreed to extend the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction to hear the matter / Held: As bailee, the Respondent owed Applicant a duty of care to look after the goods, and has the onus of establishing that he did look after them / Respondent failed to establish he took due care with the Applicant’s goods, and took unnecessary risks by transporting the goods to fairs rather than leaving them in storage / the fact the Applicant took nearly six years to file the claim made it hard for the Respondent to produce evidence to show it had taken due care, therefore loss was shared on the balance of the goods / Respondent to pay Applicant $14,436.00.

  19. AEZ and AFA v ZUV t-a SR [2013] NZDT 225 (16 July 2013) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants lent Respondent some money as his business was struggling / Applicants purchased rods and reels from Respondent and agreed to deduct this from loan / Respondent did work on Applicants’ staircase and agreed to also deduct this from loan / an altercation between First Applicant and a third party upset Respondent who then invoiced Applicants for rods, reels and work / Applicants disputed amount charged for work and claimed amount outstanding on loan and interest / Held: Respondent charged more than reasonable price for work / s 31 Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent unable to prove hours spent on job / three alternative prices used to calculate reasonable price / interest not awarded as it was not envisaged / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,075.00.

  20. ACX and ACY v ZXC Ltd [2013] NZDT 208 (11 July 2013) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Applicants parked their car at Respondent’s car park at the airport while they were overseas / on return they were not picked up by Respondent’s free shuttle / Applicants made attempts to contact Respondent and visited its premises but was not able to gain access to their vehicle / Applicants claimed for the cost of taxi and accommodation / Held: Respondent’s service was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / shuttle transfer was an inherent part of the overall service / shuttle service was not available to Applicants and it was reasonable that they booked into hotel after their attempts / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $305.53.

  21. ADF v ZWU Ltd [2013] NZDT 180 (19 June 2013) [PDF, 53 KB]

    Limitation Act / jurisdiction / Limitation Act 1950 and Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Respondent is Applicant’s former accountant that filed a GST return for a tax refund when no GST invoice was held / this caused the IRD to impose shortfall penalty / Applicant claimed compensation for the tax penalty, costs and expenses / claim was filed more than six years after the tax return was sent to the IRD / Held: claim for negligent breach of contract statute-barred under Limitation Act 1950 / Applicant may have claim in tort of negligence if damage was suffered at later point but economic loss is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / s 10(1)(c) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / also arguable that claim under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 statute-barred / claim transferred to the District Court.

  22. ADA and ADB v ZXA and ZWZ [2013] NZDT 205 (10 July 2013) [PDF, 121 KB]

    Tort / Dog Control Act 1996 / Respondents walking dog at same time as Applicants / two dogs embroiled in fight / Applicant had struck Respondent’s dog repeatedly on the head with a rock to get Respondent’s dog to drop their dog from its mouth / Both dogs required medical treatment, however, Applicant’s dog was put to sleep / Applicant’s claim the sum paid for their dog’s medical treatment / Respondents counter-claimed for their dog’s medical treatment and loss of stud fee / On the evidence, it was more likely that Respondent’s dog had been the aggressor / If the Respondent had control of their dog at the beginning of the fight she should have been able to prevent the attack from progressing / Held that the Respondent breached s 52 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by not exercising control over their dog either at the start of, or during, the attack. Applicant is not liable for damage caused to Respondent’s dog and did not breach s 52 / Claim allowed, counter-claim dismissed / Respondent ord...

  23. AFC v ZUT [2013] NZDT 209 (5 July 2013) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Parties were involved in two family businesses / Applicant planned to pull out of one business and said Respondent agreed to return some of the money invested / Respondent made three payments but denied agreeing to pay more / Applicant claimed that Respondent promised to pay the remaining money / Held: there was an agreement as Respondent had made payments / but absence of written agreement and insufficient evidence to prove Respondent owed further money / concerns about independence and recall of witnesses / thus not enough tangible or reliable evidence as to what the terms of agreement were / claim dismissed.

  24. AFS and AFT v ZUD and ZUE [2013] NZDT 348 (2 July 2013) [PDF, 104 KB]

    Contract / breach of warranty / Applicants purchased property from Respondents / Applicants discovered the tiling in the bathroom leaked and had rotted the surfaces / Held: claim was not statute barred as the cause of action arose on the date of settlement, which was just under six years from the date on which the claim was filed / clause 6.2(5)(d) of the Sale and Purchase Agreement was breached as waterproofing had been installed incorrectly / while this clause has been seen to be onerous, and it has been removed from the eighth edition of the ADLS Agreement, the Respondent’s agent used the seventh edition and the clause applies / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $10,063.02, which was 66 per cent of the total cost to reframe and tile the bathroom to reflect betterment.