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. ACF v ZXY [2013] NZDT 149 (27 June 2013) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Negligence / vicarious liability and breach of duty of care / Applicant’s lambs died from incorrect administration of capsules / Applicant’s director had contracted Respondent to administer drench capsules on a conveyor to approx 4,200 lambs / Applicant claims for loss (value of the lambs) plus additional costs / Respondent disputes liability for the loss on the grounds that it is not proved who did it and in the alternative that the director had contributed to the loss through intervening / held that Responsible liable to Applicant / the evidence establishes that it was probably CK, an employee of the Respondent, who administered the capsules / Respondent was vicariously liable for the acts of his employee and also owed a duty of care to Applicant to ensure the employee was trained to perform the job / claim allowed / Respondent liable to pay Applicant sum of $9,580.20 for loss suffered after taking into account director’s participation and less Respondent’s account for services.

  2. AFY and AFZ v ZVX and ZVW [2013] NZDT 89 (25 June 2013) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill in the supply of services / Applicants engaged Respondents to paint the exterior of their house / upon completion, the paint work began to deteriorate / issue of whether poor workmanship is the cause for the deterioration of the paint work / Respondent argued that it was not poor workmanship but environmental factors / Held: the Respondents breached ss 28 and 29 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondents failed to take reasonable care and skill when painting Applicants’ house leading to its deterioration / Respondents to pay Applicants $7,357.50, being the original cost of the painting contract.

  3. AFE Ltd v ZUR Ltd and ZUQ [2013] NZDT 150 (25 June 2013) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Contract / breach of contract / Applicant and First Respondent make an agreement as to the development of a wheelchair / Applicant claimed the cost of the work it had done under the agreement / First Respondent claimed the Applicant had spent too much time on a particular aspect of the design, meaning it was inevitable there would be a budget blowout, and therefore it was in breach of a term in the agreement that related to communication of potential budget blowout / Referee rejected the inevitability of the budget blowout and therefore Applicant was not in breach / Applicant claimed the design costs increased because the Respondent change its mind as to what was required / Referee accepted these were not small changes / Held: First Respondent found to have breached contract and required to pay all outstanding invoices, totalling $13,365.31 / Second Respondent who worked for First Respondent found not personally liable, as all invoices were made out to the First Respondent and no perso...

  4. AAI v ZZS [2013] NZDT 90 (25 June 2013) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / lease / Property Law Act 2007 / Respondent leased office space from Applicant / prior to this the Respondent took over the lease from previous lessee, which fell into arrears and was placed in liquidation, agreeing to cover its debt / Respondent continued to lease premises after lease expired then vacated / Applicant claimed rent, operating expenses, and interest / held that Respondent was obliged to give Applicant 20 working days’ notice to end tenancy / s 210 Property Law Act 2007 / rent and outgoings claimable until this date / agreement by Respondent to pay previous lessee’s indebtedness could not be offset against money owed on lease / interest owed on outstanding payments / claim allowed and Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3605.81.

  5. ADV Ltd v ZWF Ltd Trading as ZWE & ZWD [2013] NZDT 228 (18 June 2013) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Contract / verbal contract / breach of contract / First Respondent completed work on engine cylinder head for Applicant / engine failed three days later during mine work / engine repairs cost $18,229.79 / Applicant claims First Respondent incorrectly fitted valve collet, which caused the failure / existence of contract undisputed / implied term in contract that First Respondent would carry out work properly / based on Applicant’s more reliable evidence, First Respondent found to have incorrectly fitted valve collet / incorrect fitting of valve collet caused engine failure / full cost of repairs fair / extra costs incurred because repairs urgent, travel and extra wage costs for mine site work / commercial rates for parts fair / would be able to charge same rate for similar work / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,229.79

  6. AGM Ltd v ZVJ and ZVI Ltd [2013] NZDT 461 (17 June 2013) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / contract / reasonable care and skill in the supply of services / First Respondent engaged the services of the Applicant to apply a peel and stick sealant to the floor of her property / First Respondent was to supply all materials / First Respondent applied the primer to the floor but it did not dry in time / Applicant supplied two rolls of the sealant in order for it to be applied in one day / issue of whether First Respondent is liable to pay Applicant for the supply of the two rolls / First Respondent argued that the rolls supplied by Applicant were of poor quality / Held: First Respondent was responsible for the supply of all materials / no evidence that the rolls supplied were of poor quality / First Respondent is to pay $1,984.71 to the Applicant / Second Respondent is not liable.

  7. ACM Ltd v ZXS [2013] NZDT 113 (17 June 2013) [PDF, 55 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Respondent requested from Applicant valuation of his motel premises / exchange of emails clarified the type required and when it could be done by / Applicant conducted inspection and provided report / Respondent declined to pay fee alleging it was past deadline and that he did not like the valuation / Applicant claimed payment of fee / Held: Applicant delivered its report within agreed time frame with reasonable care and skill / emails made agreed time frame clear and Respondent said he was fine with this / Respondent continued with valuation after being made clear that Applicant considered the property was unlikely to be at certain figure / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $862.50.

  8. ACP v ZXP Ltd and ZXO Ltd [2013] NZDT 129 (13 June 2013) [PDF, 74 KB]

    Limitation / negligence / Limitation Act 2010 / Building Act 2004 / damage caused to Applicant’s home due to significant moisture build-up in ceiling cavity / First Respondent did not leave large enough gap in ceiling to allow moisture to escape / Second Respondent put in a moisture extraction system that did not work properly / remedial work has cost approximately $35,000 / while the construction of home, including work undertaken by respondents, was completed in June 2002, damage was discovered after 1 January 2011 / discoverability and “late knowledge” / therefore Limitation Act 2010 applies / Limitation Act prevents any claim being made six years after cause of action has accrued / Tribunal finds Applicant’s claim is not statute-barred as Applicant discovered damage three years before claim filed / notwithstanding, s 393 of the Building Act provides that no claim can be made 10 years after respondents’ acts or omissions that may have caused the damage / Building Act ‘long-stop’ pro...

  9. ADU v ZWG Ltd [2013] NZDT 223 (7 June 2013) [PDF, 63 KB]

    Contract / terms of hire / Applicant hired a campervan from Respondent’s company / clutch on the van failed / Applicant had van repaired at a cost of $2,501.95 / Applicant sought repair cost, and petrol and alternative accommodation costs resulting from breakdown / Respondent made counterclaim seeking retention of the $2,000 bond / not sufficient evidence to establish that the Applicant failed to take reasonable care, or drove or behaved recklessly or wilfully, or falsely handled the vehicle / Applicant not liable to pay cost of repairing clutch / Applicant could not claim for additional costs as the terms and conditions of the hire did not permit recovery of additional expenses incurred if vehicle broke down / Respondent ordered to refund the hire fee, except for the one day for which the van was used / Applicant owed $26.50 for fuel, which was deducted from bond / Respondent to refund $1972.50

  10. ACJ v ZXV [2013] NZDT 147 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Respondent suffered a “blackout” while driving home caused by an epileptic seizure / he lost control of the vehicle and hit Applicant’s parked car / Applicant and his insurer claimed for the cost to repair / Respondent claimed a declaration that he was not liable / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / prudent person in his position would not have driven / Respondent knew he had a reoccurrence of childhood epilepsy, had regular seizures and these would affect his ability to control a vehicle / not disputed that damage was caused by the epileptic seizure / award limited to original assessment / cost reasonable for the nature of damage described / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,130.40.

  11. ABQ and ABR v ZYO [2013] NZDT 56 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Contract / tort / negligence / driver of campervan reversed into Applicant’s car and caused damage to the car / while Respondent owns campervan, Respondent leases campervans to another company (HJ) who hires campervans out / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim repair costs from Respondent / claim in contract / driver hired campervan from HJ / therefore no contract between Applicant or Applicant’s insurer and respondent / claim in tort / respondent not responsible for driving and/or control of campervan / driver was not an agent of the respondent / Tribunal also finds Respondent not vicariously liable / claim dismissed.

  12. ABT Ltd v ZYJ Ltd [2013] NZDT 71 (5 June 2013) [PDF, 75 KB]

    Tort / negligence / vicarious liability / Respondent’s truck collided with self-closing door of a storage facility owned by the Applicant / Respondent was delivering goods belonging to its customer / Applicant claimed for temporary and full repairs to the door / driver should have seen the door closing / he took a risk in exiting out of the building in such a manner that meant he had less time than usual to exit it / sensors on the door would not have prevented the collision / Held: that the driver drove negligently when exiting the facility / carriage of goods contract between Respondent and its customer excluded liability for trucks directed onto property / Applicant not a party to that contract and exclusion clause was not brought to Applicant’s attention / therefore exclusion clause does not apply to Applicant / driver was an agent for the Respondent and carrying out the Respondent’s business at the time / therefore Respondent vicariously liable for driver’s negligence / costs clai...

  13. ADS v ZWI Ltd [2013] NZDT 220 (29 May 2013) [PDF, 55 KB]

    Contract / Applicant submitted a quote to Respondent to lay 50 m² of timber / quote accepted / area was in fact 90 m² / Applicant advised Respondent’s project manager that the job would require additional labour and materials / advised to proceed and that the matter would be sorted out later / Applicant decided to not charge for additional glue as goodwill gesture / Applicant submitted invoices / accounts not paid / Applicant decided to charge for glue / claim for cost of glue, $1,265.00, and filing fee / held that it was Respondent’s mistake in thinking the area was only 50 m² and needed to make it clear to Applicant that it would not pay for additional labour and materials / failed to inform Applicant before he started work / Applicant went ahead with work with reasonable belief he would be paid / Applicant entitled to charge for additional glue as the goodwill gesture was contingent on prompt payment of accounts / Applicant entitled to charge for glue / Respondent to pay $1,265.00 t...

  14. ABH v ZYV Ltd [2013] NZDT 37 (28 May 2013) [PDF, 117 KB]

    Contract / Declaration of non-liability / Applicant purchased a roller blind from a third party which has a confusingly similar name to Respondent / problems with roller blind were fixed under warranty by third party / after another problem, Applicant mistakenly called Respondent, which attended the issue and issued invoice / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability under s 10(1)(b) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Held: the Applicant was obliged to pay invoice / she entered into agreement with Respondent, which was entitled to payment / Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 not applicable / no misrepresentation under Contractual Remedies Act 1979 or misleading conduct under Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent entitled to charge reasonable fee even where price not discussed in advance under s 31 of Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / however, late payment fee not part of agreement / claim dismissed and Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $80.00.

  15. ABD v ZZA [2013] NZDT 50 (22 May 2013) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Contract / accord and satisfaction / Respondent provided accounting services to Applicant, another company and a trust / Applicant emailed Respondent asking whether it would charge less to which Respondent replied that it would charge maximum of $4,500.00 / sum of invoices then came to $4,500.00 plus GST / Applicant made payments totalling $5,000.00 / Respondent apportioned payments in a way that left a balance due for Applicant / Applicant claimed non-liability and refund of the GST paid / Held: if a sum of money is not stated to be GST inclusive or exclusive, the sum is deemed to be GST inclusive / principle of contra preferentum applies thus quoted maximum price of $4,500.00 was GST inclusive / payments were made without dispute and properly apportioned by Respondent / Applicant not liable to pay disputed account of $175.00 but unable to recover the $500.00 / claim allowed (in part), Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $175.00.

  16. ABR v ZYN and ZYM [2013] NZDT 35 (20 May 2013) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / insurance / Applicant’s business broken into and stock was stolen / Applicant lodged a claim with its insurer, the First Respondent / First Respondent accepted claim, however, subsequent negotiations between Applicant and First Respondent did not result in agreement on value of loss / loss adjuster appointed by Second Respondent to investigate circumstances of loss / Applicant claims payment of full claim under its insurance policy / Applicant provided Respondents with all information it could reasonably provide / Tribunal notes that First Respondent’s settlement proposals were based on estimates / First Respondent could not reasonably have required Applicant under policy terms to provide accurate assessment of loss as it would be logistically impossible and too onerous / Tribunal finds that having accepted the claim, and absent agreement, First Respondent was obliged to pay the full amount sought unless particulars provided by applicant were considered insufficient, on reas...

  17. ABN Ltd v ZYR & ZYQ [2013] NZDT 61 (17 May 2013) [PDF, 68 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / oral agreement between parties as to construction of driveway / Applicant formed the driveway and third party contractor sealed it / part of the driveway was not sealed on advice by Applicant, as the driveway would otherwise slump / dispute arose as to the cost of completing the formation of this section so that it could be sealed / Applicant claimed $463.63 as the alleged outstanding balance of the quoted price / held that Respondents had not made full and final payment and Applicant was entitled to outstanding monies / no accord and agreement in respect to earlier payment constituting full and final settlement / allegation of breach of s 28 of the CGA (guarantee that service will be provided with reasonable care and skill) not upheld / no breach of s 29 of the CGA (guarantee that the product of a service provided shall be fit for its purpose / Applicant’s claim upheld and Respondents to pay $463.63.

  18. ABL & ABM v ZYS Ltd [2013] NZDT 59 (16 May 2013) [PDF, 58 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased furniture sold by Respondent company / Applicants did not receive full furniture setting / Applicants claim that contract be cancelled as well as a refund of the purchase price / Held: not reasonable for owner to assume customers were aware that furniture pieces could be sold separately without specifically discussing it or marking it clearly on the price tag / owner of company failed to ensure that customers’ intentions were clear and that he would be able to provide them with the exact product ordered / Respondent breached guarantee under s 10 CGA (goods supplied by reference to a sample or demonstration model must correspond with sample or demonstration model) / Respondent failed to remedy defect with the sale and purchase of the furniture within a reasonable period of time / therefore, Applicants entitled to cancel the contract and obtain a full refund of the purchase price / strike out / respondent company is the...

  19. ADD v ZWX [2013] NZDT 190 (15 May 2013) [PDF, 63 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / parties had a collision at an intersection governed by a give way sign for Respondent who was turning right /  it was dark at the time of collision / owner of car and Applicant’s insurer claimed repair costs / Held: it was more likely that Applicant told Respondent that he would contact his insurance company than admit liability / by turning right from a give way sign Respondent was obliged to give way to traffic travelling straight ahead or turning from roadway not controlled by a stop or give way sign / rule 4.2(1) Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Respondent should have waited until Applicant had driven past intersection before turning / repair costs claimed were reasonable as an assessor assessed the cost of damage / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,280.43.

  20. ADT & CR Insurance Ltd v ZWH [2013] NZDT 221 (9 May 2013) [PDF, 63 KB]

    Tort / Negligence / Respondent drove through give way sign / Respondent claims his brakes failed and that the Applicant was driving too fast / held that Respondent was negligent because he failed to give way / no evidence brakes failed / held that Applicant was not speeding and no contributory negligence on their part / repair costs and towing costs claimed deemed reasonable / Respondent to pay $4084.71 to the Applicant’s insurer for the costs of repairs and towing the car.

  21. AF v ZU Ltd and ZUZ Ltd [2013] NZDT 219 (8 May 2013) [PDF, 23 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s vehicle broke down and was diagnosedas a leaking injector pump seal and repaired by Second Respondent, then brokedown again and diagnosed as a computer fault and repaired, intermittent faultwas then gone / Applicant claimed for cost of the first repair / Held: Applicantliable to pay for both repairs / more likely than not there were two faults withvehicle / Second Respondent acted with reasonable care and reasonable skill /claim dismissed, Applicant ordered to pay Second Respondent $703.69.

  22. AAA & XY Insurance v ZZZ & ZX Insurance [2013] NZDT 6 (8 May 2013) [PDF, 63 KB]

    Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s cows escaped on the road / Applicant’s son collided with one of the cows and wrote off the car / issue as to whether the gates were “inadequate” for the purpose of restraining stock, especially in the context of cows in a state of calving / held that the gate was inadequate and the Respondent had a duty to provide extra support to it / crash was caused by the cows escaping onto the road / Applicant awarded $3,680.05 for pre-accident value of the car, plus storage and related costs/ Respondent to pay the money to Applicant’s insurer.