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. WU v QD [2021] NZDT 1613 (27 July 2021) [PDF, 270 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased caravan from Respondent / Applicant did not inspect caravan before purchase / After purchase Applicant did not consider overall quality of caravan as good as advertisement presented / Applicant claimed misrepresentation regarding new wall and roof installation and refrigerator and sought damages of $14,500.00 / Held: factually incorrect information provided in relation to wall installation in caravan / Incorrect information not provided about refrigerator / Claim regarding misrepresentation of refrigerator must fail / Statement about new wall installation was of a nature that would induce an average objective person in the circumstances to enter the contract to purchase the caravan / Applicant has proven inducement and actionable misrepresentation by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay $10,722.60 to Applicant / Claim allowed

  2. TC v I Ltd G Ltd [2021] NZDT 1570 (26 July 2021) [PDF, 177 KB]

    Duty of care / Applicant driving on SH1 at 30km/h / Road was being resurfaced / Tyre and rim suddenly significantly damaged / Metal lid of service entry raised above the road / No road cones or warnings to alert motorists to the hazard / Respondents breached duty of care by not alerting motorists to the hazard / Respondents did not follow their traffic management guidelines / Applicant entitled to compensation for the cost of new tyre and the cost of rim repair / Respondents liable to compensate Applicant $807.80

  3. TQ v OC [2021] NZDT 1620 (26 July 2021) [PDF, 157 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased boat engine from Respondent after told motor perfect / After purchase Applicant discovered engine had defect and would not turn over / Applicant claims $1,269 from Respondent for sum paid and cost of mechanical assessment / Whether there was a misrepresentation in the sale of the motor / Whether Applicant entitled to sum claimed / Held: not true that motor was perfect at time statement was made / Language would have included a normal person to buy motor / Misrepresentation in sale of motor / Held: Applicant entitled to sum paid and expense of assessment / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $1,269 to Applicant

  4. CO Ltd v GM Ltd [2019] NZDT 1478 (26 July 2019) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Contract / Section 144 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant supplied Respondent stock / Respondent only sold small portion of stock and wished to return remaining stock in exchange for credit / Applicant claimed $15,000.00 towards invoices / Respondent counterclaimed $3,340.00 for storage costs / Held: Applicant not obligated to accept the goods return / Respondent must make payment for the goods in accordance with the contract / Applicant limits claim in accordance with Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $15,000.00 / Claim allowed.

  5. TS v LD TI & EX& W Inc [2021] NZDT 1598 (23 July 2021) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Remedy / Applicant purchased horse from Respondent and Second Respondent / Applicant engaged Third Respondent to provide pre purchase examination which did not record any concerns / after purchase horse diagnosed with several issues and given poor prognosis for athletic performance and long term pleasure riding / Applicant euthanised horse and claims full reimbursement of purchase price of $28,750.00 from Respondents / Held: Third Respondent was not negligent in exercising duty of care when carrying out pre purchase exam of horse / Held: Respondent and Second Respondent acted “in trade” when sold horse to Applicant / Guarantees in CGA apply to sale / Held: horse did not comply with guarantees of acceptable quality and fitness for purpose per ss 7 and 8 of CGA / Held: failure of substantial character per s 21 of CGA / Applicant entitled to compensation of $19,165.00 / Claim allowed

  6. KT v BM [2021] NZDT 1571 (22 July 2021) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Flatmate agreement / Respondent entered applicant’s bedroom multiple times when intoxicated in the night / Applicant sought repayment of bond of $350 from the respondent / Respondent sought rent and miscellaneous costs from applicant / Whether the applicant entitled to cancel the contract / Whether the amount claimed was proven / Held: implied term of contract that the head tenant should not enter the flatmate’s exclusive use area without their consent / privacy and personal security an essential party of the contract / Breach was sufficient to justify the applicant cancelling the contract / Respondent suffered financial loss resulting from a situation of his own making / Respondent ordered to pay $350 to the applicant / Claim granted.

  7. BT v SM [2021] NZDT 1562 (22 July 2021) [PDF, 217 KB]

    Contract / Tort / Flatting agreements / Two separate flatmate agreements between the applicant property owner and the respondents / Dispute over flood damage, furniture damage and rent arears / Applicant claimed $2,055.00 from Respondents for compensation and rent arears / Tenancy Tribunal had earlier determined that the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply in this claim / Whether any or all of the respondents breached their duty of care not to damage the property / If so, what foreseeable loss flowed from the breach / Question of when the tenancy ended and whether rent had been paid to that date / Held: respondents owed a duty of care not to damage the applicant’s property / evidence established some of the respondents were responsible for damage to the sofa / evidence relating to flood damage unclear / not satisfied the applicant has proven the claim on the balance of probabilities / rent claim not proven on the evidence / two of the respondents responsible for small amount o...

  8. UO & NO v HS Ltd & JI & HM [2021] NZDT 1587 (21 July 2021) [PDF, 270 KB]

    Building Act 2004 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Implied warranty / Guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Breach / Applicants purchased property from Second and Third Respondent / Applicant discovered several defects with newly built house which was built by Respondent / Applicants claim $30,000 for cost of remedial work / Held: there is an implied warranty under the Building Act / Applicants are able to file claim against respondents for breach / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act applies in claim / Held: Respondent breached implied warranty under the Building Act and CGA ss 28 and 29 / Respondent as builder responsible to ensure work done with reasonable skill and was compliant / Failure of substantial character and defects rendered new building not fit for purpose / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $22,674.47 for remedial work

  9. OK Ltd v HO Ltd & BG [2020] NZDT 1519 (21 July 2020) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Payment / Applicants entered into contract with company to do plumbing work for First Respondent / Work halted as First Respondent could not pay invoices / After Applicant met with Second Respondent work continued / Two further invoices issued and not paid / Applicant claims Second Respondent said he would personally pay for work / Applicant claims $6,002.99 from Second Respondent / Second Respondent claims he was facilitator and payments he made were paid as loan to First Respondent / Held: Second Respondent had personally paid company for previous work and said he would pay for work to finish job / Second Respondent did not say he was acting as agent for First Respondent / Second Respondent liable for payments on basis he promised to personally pay / Claim allowed except for costs and claimed interest / Discretionary interest granted, calculated in accordance with Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,193.51.

  10. FD Ltd v FT [2021] NZDT 1577 (20 July 2021) [PDF, 216 KB]

    Contract / Music festival / Second Respondent approached Applicant to engage artists to perform at music festival / Shortly after the contract was signed the First Respondent, managing director of the Second Respondent, cancelled the contract and said the event was cancelled / Applicant later discovered the event was not cancelled and another line up of musicians was used / Applicant claimed there had been a repudiation of the contract / Applicant claimed the Second Respondent was contractually obliged to pay $49,000 for cost of contract / Applicant reduced the claim amount to $30,000 to come within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal / What were the relevant terms of the contract / Whether there was a valid cancellation of the contract / Whether the applicant was entitled to all of the $30,000 / Held: First Respondent was liable to pay $30,000 / Accepted that the First Respondent cancelled the contract as she no longer had financial backing / Terms of the contract meant the Applicant cou...

  11. DE v TQ [2021] NZDT 1572 (20 July 2021) [PDF, 219 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant bought boat from Respondent which was found to have corrosion in hull and issue with motor / Applicant claims damages of $4,999.00 for cost of repairs / Held: boat represented as good boat with no issues is incorrect and a misrepresentation / Held: Applicant induced to purchase boat by Respondent’s misrepresentation and is entitled to damages per s 35(1)(a) CCLA / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay damages of $4,000.00 to Applicant

  12. FL & UL v DB [2021] NZDT 1595 (19 July 2021) [PDF, 209 KB]

    Negligence / Applicants involved in car collision with Respondent / Applicants and Applicant's insurer claim repair costs on basis Respondent caused the crash / Damage to cars supported view that Respondent caused crash by failing to give way / Applicant’s use of flush median was legal but more care was needed / Damage to Applicant's car suggests he was not travelling slowly / Held: Respondent has 75% liability and Applicant 25% / Respondent liable for 75% of repair cost to Applicants car / Respondent must pay Applicant's insurer $5893.60

  13. HN v FH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1576 (16 July 2021) [PDF, 243 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Promissory Estoppel / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked 3 tickets on a spectator boat during the America’s Cup for 13 March / Applicant arrived after check in time and missed departure of vessel / Applicant claims refund of ticket costs, accommodation costs, filing fee and legal costs/damages / Respondent does not agree to refunding ticket price as purchase honoured by providing Applicant alternative trip / Held: Respondent did not breach contract as Applicant did not adhere to conditions of agreement / Held: promissory estoppel does not apply in these circumstances as no detriment to Applicant, he has not suffered any loss as alternative trip offered / Held: Applicant complied with terms and conditions, did not breach FTA / Claim dismissed

  14. JT & JB Ltd v SN [2021] NZDT 1582 (16 July 2021) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Respondent was pulling out of a car park when collision with Applicant’s vehicle occurred / Dispute regarding whether Respondent drove in front of Applicant or Applicant turned into Respondent’s vehicle /  Held: Respondent drove in front of Applicant and was negligent / Claim allowed / Respondent liable for damage to Applicant’s vehicle and ordered to pay $5,806.50

  15. RC v TR Ltd [2021] NZDT 1573 (15 July 2021) [PDF, 185 KB]

    Contract / Roof work / Applicant requested a quote from the respondent for roof work / Quoted price of $3,252.00 was accepted by applicant / Applicant paid fifty percent deposit and respondent carried out work / Applicant had no issue with the quality of work / applicant believed he was overcharged due to number of workers and time spent on the roof work  / Applicant refused to pay balance owed on contract / Respondent counterclaimed $1,626.00 / Whether the law provided an opportunity for a fixed price contract to be reviewed / Whether the respondent mispresented the amount of work or materials needed / Held: time to explore whether bargain was reasonable was before agreement was made not after work was done, unless a price for work was not set in the contract /no misrepresentations made by the respondent regarding the work to be carried out / contract was clear about how work would be done and the price charged / outstanding amount is overdue / Applicant ordered to pay $1,626.00 to th...

  16. MQ v HQ [2021] NZDT 1659 (14 July 2021) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Parties were neighbours and shared a boundary fence between their adjoining properties / Applicant claimed Respondent has damaged fence by attaching old doors to add height to fence / Applicant claimed cost of replacing fence pailings as attachments are causing damage to fence / Whether Respondent was responsible for damage to fence / If so, was Applicant entitled to costs or any other sum / Held: additions to fence were damage to the fence and must be removed / Not sufficient degree of damage to fence to justify replacement of pailings / Claim for compensation not granted / Respondent ordered to remove attachments to fence / If Respondent fails to remove Applicant can arrange contractor to remove and Respondent will be liable to pay $300.00 to Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

  17. NB & TL v UQ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1657 (13 July 2021) [PDF, 191 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants entered contract with Respondent for repairs to flood damage to property / Contract included 25% deposit of total sum / Work commenced on site in September 2021 but Respondent did not return until Applicant’s insurer paid deposit / Applicant cancelled contract in October 2021 and claims for return of deposit and payment for damage caused by Respondent / Respondent counter claims losses due to cancellation of contract / Whether Respondent claimed to be a certified, qualified or licensed builder in breach of FTA; if so were Applicants entitled to cancel contract; was work carried out with reasonable care and skill and fit for purpose per CGA; if not, what is the remedy; are Applicants entitled to return of deposit; were Applicants entitled to cancel contract; did Applicants breach contract; if so, what is the remedy / Held: more likely than not Respondent engaged in misleading conduct stating he was a qualified ...

  18. MX v BO & KO [2021] NZDT 1630 (13 July 2021) [PDF, 141 KB]

    Property / Parties are neighbours and share adjoining property boundary / Applicant to replace septic tank and seeks order for removal of trees on Respondent’s property / Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order for removal of trees / Whether roots have grown from Respondent’s property and caused damage / Whether roots from Respondent’s property need to be removed to install septic system / Whether debris from Respondent’s trees blocked drain and caused damage / Whether Applicant entitled to compesation / Whether Tribunal able to make award for Tribunal Filing fee / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order removal of trees / Removal of trees not within Tribunal’s jurisdiction per s 10(1) of the Disputes Tribunal Act / Root damage claims dismissed because no evidence of damage to property / Debris damage claim struck out as it relates to request to remove trees / Claim for compensation dismissed / Tribunal has limited ability to make award of costs per s 43 Disputes ...

  19. ET and JT v F Ltd [2021] NZDT 1639 (13 July 2021) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to complete services relating to their EQC claims / Parties signed contract for services, 4 September 2018 / Delay in completing services / Applicants cancelled contract, 28 January 2021 / Applicants claim refund of $10,420.73, declaration they are not liable to pay invoice of $18,829.38 / Respondent counterclaims payment of $25,078.63 for services provided / Held: Respondent did not comply with obligation to complete services within a reasonable time / Respondent breached consumer guarantee relating to time of completion / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Claim allowed in part, claim for $10,420.73 dismissed, claim for declaration Applicants not obliged to pay invoice of $18,828.38 allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.

  20. CF v EX [2021] NZDT 1623 (13 July 2021) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant wanted outboard motor put on boat / Applicant met Respondent through social media advertisement about motor project / Applicant agreed to have Respondent do the work and install motor / Applicant paid Respondent $900.00 for materials and $1200.00 for labour / Respondent completed most work but experienced issues delaying completion / Applicant had someone else complete work and install motor / Whether there was a legally binding contract between parties and did they intend to create legal relations / Whether the Respondent breached the contract / Whether the CGA applies / If breach, what damages payable or remedies available to Applicant / Held: parties did intend a legally binding agreement / Held: Respondent failed to complete work and had sufficient opportunity in circumstances to complete it / Held: extra $1050.00 Applicant had to pay is value of bargain lost / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1050.00

  21. IN v SU [2021] NZDT 1652 (12 July 2021) [PDF, 161 KB]

    Contract / Car advertised for sale on Facebook Marketplace / Applicant expressed interest / Respondent agreed to hold car until following day for agreed price / Respondent said he would take car for warrant of fitness next morning and adjust price accordingly / Respondent then sold car to another party without contacting Applicant / Respondent claims difference between what he had agreed to pay for the car and cost of getting another similar car, travel costs, and refund of Disputes Tribunal fees / Respondent counterclaimed that claim was frivolous / Held: Consumers Guarantees Act does not apply to the claim / There was a clear offer and agreed terms / There was acceptance of offer / There was adequate consideration / Parties intended to create legal relations / There was a contract between parties / Respondent breached contract by selling car to third party without notice to Applicant / Respondent owes Applicant $2450.00 being the difference between what he would have paid for the car...

  22. IH v DD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1624 (12 July 2021) [PDF, 187 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant was a tenant in a property owned by the Respondent / Parties later entered into negotiations for sale and purchase of the property / Unconditional agreement was signed and the Applicant paid a $23,000.00 deposit / Applicant’s finance fell through due to the lender discovering the self-contained downstairs was unconsented, so the property could not be used as home and income / Applicant obtained alternative finance soon after settlement notice deadline expired / Respondent cancelled the sale and purchase agreement and sold the property to another buyer / Applicant sought return of her deposit, $1,936.24 for the goods left on the property and disposed of by the Respondent as well as legal costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $30,000.00 in damages / Whether the Respondent induced Applicant to enter into the contract by a misrepresentation regarding the granny flat / Whether the Respondent breached the contrac...

  23. BC v BT [2021] NZDT 1625 (12 July 2021) [PDF, 175 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent in 2015 /  In 2019 Applicant took the laptop for repair to an agent of the Respondent / Applicant claimed battery failed prematurely / Applicant claimed the problem with the external charger was a fault, which he should not have to pay for / Whether the laptop failed the guarantee of acceptable quality under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Whether the battery failed prematurely / Whether the laptop was faulty because the laptop was not charging / Held: evidence indicated that the battery was not faulty / more likely the battery had reached its life of 1000 cycles / Laptop not found to have failed the guarantee of acceptable quality regarding the battery / From the evidence available not possible to determine whether the Applicant had a loss relating to the external charging issue / Claim dismissed

  24. IM v KZ [2021] NZDT 1627 (9 July 2021) [PDF, 241 KB]

    Contract / Employment / Tort / Applicant worked for health provider and provided care to Respondent’s father until May 2020 / Respondent was paid by ACC to provide some of her mother’s care / In July 2020, Applicant and Respondent discussed the option of Applicant caring for both Respondent’s mother and father privately / Applicant accepted the private position / Applicant later learnt from ACC she would receive lower pay and no longer receive annual leave and other benefits / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented employment package and caused her loss / Applicant claimed $11,257.50 from Respondent / Whether there was a contract between the Applicant and Respondent / If so, whether the contractual relationship was one of employer and employee under the Employment Relations Act 2000 (ERA) /  Whether the Applicant had a claim against the Respondent based on quasi-contract / Whether the Applicant had a claim against the Respondent in tort  / Held: Respondent was not engaging Applica...