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

377 items matching your search terms

  1. DQ v VJ & VJV Ltd [2015] NZDT 831 (8 September 2015) [PDF, 131 KB]

    Contract / sale and purchase of property / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s 6 / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), ss 43 and 9 / applicant bought respondent’s property that was listed with second respondent / applicant unhappy about water that lies on driveway and footpath after heavy rain / claims $6,000 from respondents / Held: evidence does not prove property was misrepresented by respondents / second respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive required under FTA / claim dismissed

  2. DE v WV Ltd [2015] NZDT 840 (4 September 2015) [PDF, 132 KB]

    Contract / independent contractor / Applicant engaged as contract builder by Respondent through written contract / Respondent allocated 96 hours for job, which extended to 116 following issues arising in work / Respondent has paid Applicant for 122 hours / Applicant claims $2,978.50 for additional 74 unpaid hours / Held: Applicant was working on estimate rather than fixed price basis under the contract / Applicant required to invoice time that reflected assigned hours / standard industry practice allows 15% margin on estimates above allocated hours towards actual time on job / Applicant entitled to charge and be paid for 110.4 hours for original scope of work / unpredictable issues arose during job that required more time / Respondent did not allocate additional hours for this increase by mutual agreement with Applicant, as was required under contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant additional hours for estimate and issues that arose, totalling $1,465.10

  3. CW-v-XD-2015-NZDT-878-4-September-2015 [PDF, 115 KB]

    Contract / negligence / Applicant sought half the cost for arborist and tree work undertaken / Respondent counterclaimed for damage to his property from tree work and rent when contractors used his property as a workplace and car park / HELD: Respondent obtained resource consent to cut down tree years earlier / Applicant engaged arborist before consulting with Respondent / therefore Respondent only liable to pay half the cost of tree felling / claim partially allowed, Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,322.50 for tree work / Respondent did not prove on balance of probabilities that Applicant caused damage, nor can he charge rent without agreement between the parties / counterclaim dismissed

  4. EA v UZ Ltd [2015] NZDT 889 (12 August 2015) [PDF, 149 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased type A factory bike from original owner / Respondent was the licensed importer / dirt found in the motorcycle’s airbox caused serious damage to the engine / Applicant repaired the bike himself and claimed for his losses / Held: motorbike not of acceptable quality / inadequate airbox filter system compromised bike’s durability / Respondent considered manufacturer / Applicant able to claim against manufacturer for losses relating to engine failure / Applicant not required by CGA to send bike to Respondent for examination  / Applicant unable to profit from engine failure / amount of losses not changed for betterment or loss of value / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,318.08 and to arrange for collection of damaged engine from Applicant at own cost.

  5. EF Ltd & EFE Ltd v UU [2015] NZDT 925 (3 August 2015) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent reversed his truck into the Applicant’s Toyota Hilux causing damage to the vehicle / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claimed $3,337.99 for repair costs / Held: Respondent failed to keep a proper look out when reversing his truck and failed to give way to the driver of the Hilux / Respondent’s visibility was significantly obstructed and took no extra steps to check for oncoming traffic / Respondent did not take reasonable care in operating his truck / costs claimed are reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,286.13.

  6. CO v XM 2015 NZDT 887 (17 July 2015) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Contract / misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased used car from Respondent after seeing advertisement / Applicant purchased car after completing a test drive / Applicant claimed for necessary repairs and filing fee / Held: no misrepresentation / statements in advertisement were general and either true as far as anyone knew or statements of opinion / Applicant not induced into contract by advertisement having inspected the car and test drove it / advertisement merely induced Applicant to investigate further and do own checks on the car / an example of a “buyer beware” situation / claim dismissed

  7. CX-v-XC-Law-Firm-2015-NZDT-885-16-July-2015 [PDF, 118 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged lawyer from Respondent firm to assist with mediation / claim that lawyer failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill as Applicant forced to sign settlement he was not happy with / declaration sought that Applicant not liable to pay invoice / Respondent counter-claimed for payment with interest / HELD: Applicant signed settlement agreement at mediation and confirmed it the following day following lengthy conversation with lawyer / Tribunal found lawyer provided good professional service to Applicant / no breach of Consumer Guarantees Act / request for declaration of non-liability declined, claim dismissed / counter-claim allowed, Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $5,742.47

  8. BP v YK [2015] NZDT 795 (13 July 2015) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Jurisdiction / parties were in a de facto relationship for six years during which Respondent established a family trust that purchased leasehold property / parties lived together in the property as co-tenants / trust did not renew lease when leasehold expired, relationship broke up and both parties left the property / Applicant claimed $4,868.07 for money spent on improvements and maintenance / Held: all transactions between parties governed by the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction under Property (Relationships) Act / even if Applicant’s claim treated as against Respondent in her capacity as trustee, relationship between Applicant and trust is that of tenant and landlord and transactions between them may raise relationship property issues / claim struck out.

  9. BR v YI Ltd 2015 NZDT 803 (25 June 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out a pre-purchase inspection on a vehicle / Applicant purchased the vehicle and when he took it in for a service he was told the engine had been taken apart and was given a poor report / Applicant claimed loss of $9,000 / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does apply even though Applicant was purchasing the vehicle for his business / no evidence there was agreement to contract out of the Act / Respondent carried out its service with reasonable care and skill given the scope of inspection service that was contracted for / not sufficient evidence inspection by Respondent was deficient / failure to include presence of catch-can in report does not constitute breach of guarantee / claim dismissed.

  10. DC v WX [2015] NZDT 830 (9 June 2015) [PDF, 122 KB]

    Jurisdiction / survey marks and boundary fence / Cadastral Survey Act 2002 (CSA) / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / parties are neighbours / Applicant removed part of boundary fence to safely remove tree stumps / Applicant noticed two boundary pegs missing while reinstating fence / Applicant claims $1,0355 from Respondent for cost to survey and reinstate boundary pegs on grounds that Respondent removed or tar sealed them during previous driveway maintenance / Respondent counterclaims $1,889.75 in legal costs, stating Applicant verbally agreed to resurvey fence when finished with trees / Held: no jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s claim of interference with survey marks as under s 55, CSA / no jurisdiction over survey cost matters under FA, ss 24(p) and 24A(1) / no jurisdiction over claims involving survey pegs as they cannot qualify as “property” under s 10(1)(c), DTA / Respondent not awarded legal costs as Applicant had arguable case for claim and did not know ...

  11. BQ BQB v YJ Ltd [2015] NZDT 799 (1 June 2015) [PDF, 161 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicants bought an earthquake damaged house and arranged for vendors to assign to them claims related to the earthquake damage the vendors had made with EQC and insurer, Respondent / Applicants claimed accommodation and storage costs of $11,780 / Held: not satisfied the deed achieved transfer of the vendors’ rights to accommodation and storage costs or that Respondent had represented these could be assigned / novation is required for all rights and obligations of an insured to be transferred / wording actually used in deeds or insurance policies must be considered / accommodation expenses not an accrued right assigned with the claim, rather a personal policy entitlement that was not assigned / words used in assignment not sufficient to transfer any entitlements to a claim related to contents policy which is separate from house policy / not persuaded Respondent’s “silence” is actionable misrepresentation or it had active obligation to disabuse any erroneo...

  12. CU v XG [2015] NZDT 782 (28 May 2015) [PDF, 106 KB]

    Contract / misrepresentation / sale and purchase of land / Fair Trading Act 1986, sections 9, 14 and 43(3)(f) / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, sections 155 and 110(3) / Applicant claimed against Respondent real estate agent for misrepresentation, failing to disclose structural issues and pressure on her to buy property / Respondent claimed that Real Estate Agents Disciplinary Tribunal already determined this matter / HELD: while Respondent breached Fair Trading Act, Applicant did not rely on misrepresentation / building report identified issues with piles, but Applicant still proceeded with purchase / no longer any causal connection between Respondent’s misleading conduct and Applicant’s decision to proceed with purchase / claim dismissed

  13. CM Ltd v XO 2015 NZDT 823 (26 May 2015) [PDF, 62 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant replaced spouting at Respondent’s property / Respondent noticed dents in roof after work completed / Applicant offered discount off invoice / Applicant claimed for payment of invoice / Respondent counterclaimed for costs to repair dents / Held: Respondent contractually obligated to pay for work completed as invoiced / Tribunal not persuaded on the evidence that it is more probable than not that Applicant dented roof / Respondent not entitled to offset repair costs for roof / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $1,592.72 to the Applicant for price quoted / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

  14. BY Ltd and BYB v YB and YBY [2015] NZDT 778 (5 May 2015) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant undertook development work and disputes arose regarding the legality of drainage work and cost of fencing on shared boundaries / Applicants sought declaration that drainage work was legal and claimed $3,800 for the cost of fencing and $4,128.50 in legal fees / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make a declaration as sought by Applicant / cannot make a declaration in Respondents’ favour / no basis to make an order for cost of fencing against Respondents as Applicant had not served a Fencing Act notice and there was no agreement / no basis to make an order against Respondents for legal costs incurred by Applicants / claim dismissed.

  15. BH v YH Ltd [2015] NZDT 757 (24 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bike online from Respondent which developed fault / stand-off between parties as to who should pay for freight to return bike to Respondent / Applicant eventually sent the bike to Respondent which discovered and repaired minor wiring fault / Applicant claimed $1,790.96 for refund of the bike, courier costs and compensation / Held: Applicant did not give Respondent opportunity to examine the bike and to repair and therefore did not have right to reject the bike / bike failed to meet guarantee of acceptable quality and Applicant is entitled to freight cost as it is cost reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for cost of freighting bike back to Applicant / Applicant’s claims for other consequential losses dismissed / supplier cannot contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to freight bike back to Applicant and pay $90.

  16. DB v WY Ltd [2015] NZDT 829 (22 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Jurisdiction / bankruptcy / ss 76 and 101, Insolvency Act 2006 / Applicant granted rehearing of claim / Respondent lodged counterclaim / Applicant adjudicated bankrupt / Held: Applicant’s claim cannot proceed in Tribunal / on adjudication of bankruptcy, all property and powers over property for bankrupt’s benefit vest in Official Assignee / Applicant must contact Official Assignee about claim / Respondent’s counterclaim cannot proceed / all proceedings to recover debt halt when party adjudicated bankrupt / Respondent must apply to High Court to continue claim / claim struck out

  17. BO v YL [2015] NZDT 773 (13 April 2015) [PDF, 16 KB]

    Contract / insurance / Applicant claimed $2,527.70 from his insurer, Respondent, for repairs to the deck at his home and maintains damage was caused by a sudden event and is covered by his house insurance policy / Held: can exclude the possibility of product failure and of a wide scale failure of the product generally / evidence suggests only other alternative is sudden damage to the deck causing damage to the waterproof membrane / fact Applicant cannot recall a specific event does not, of itself, exclude likelihood a specific event causing damage occurred / Applicant established on balance of probabilities that there had been a sudden event causing damage to the waterproofing and is therefore entitled to be covered for the damage / claim allowed, First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,127.70.

  18. DA v WZ & WZW Ltd [2015] 761 (22 March 2015) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failure to satisfy contract / Respondent is director of company listed as second Respondent / Applicant delivered motorbike to Respondent for repairs / Respondent stalled repairs for long period of time / Applicant requested return of motorbike / Respondent declined / Applicant lodged claim / Respondent returned partially assembled motorbike / Respondent did not charge for services / Applicant claims for various losses and costs incurred while motorbike was in Respondent’s possession for 20 months / Held: Applicant at all times was dealing with second Respondent as a full legal entity company / no basis for personal liability against Respondent / second Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable care and skill or complete contract in reasonable time / failure to charge does not absolve liability under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entitled to have motorbike serviced by another supplier and receive additional damages / claim...

  19. CL v XP 2015 NZDT 743 (27 February 2015) [PDF, 74 KB]

     Negligence / contributory negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent collided as Respondent entered motorway / Applicant’s insurer claimed against Respondent for insured loss / Held: Applicant had right-of-way when Respondent collided with his vehicle / Respondent failed to enter motorway from on-ramp with due care / damage to Applicant’s vehicle and lengths taken by Applicant to locate independent witness added weight to Applicant’s version of events / no evidence of contributory negligence / costs claimed were actual, reasonable and consistent with nature of impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,656.61 

  20. BN v YM [2015] NZDT 770 (23 February 2015) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 / Applicant placed four live bets online on an international football match but stated she made a mistake by betting on first half goal scores / Applicant claimed $3,300 in refund / Held: do not accept Applicant made a unilateral mistake known to Respondent / with online betting Respondent does not have opportunity to engage with the other party to their contract prior to betting so cannot understand bettor’s intentions / Applicant had properly been informed of terms and conditions of online and live betting on website / rules necessary in fairness to all punters so they can rely on integrity of the betting system / claim dismissed.

  21. BM Ltd v YN [2015] NZDT 769 (23 February 2015) [PDF, 71 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was contracted to provide plumbing services to Respondent’s bathroom on behalf of Respondent’s insurance company / Respondent decided to alter vanity area which was beyond the scope of remedial work being completed / Applicant claimed $2,376.07 for work completed / Held: Respondent liable to pay the amounts claimed / insufficient evidence to establish amount claimed for the work was not reasonable / collection, service and filing fee costs can be claimed only where they are allowed for in contract / Applicant’s claim that Respondent signed job authorisation form not made out / Respondent’s position caused considerable delay in payment / appropriate for 27 months’ interest at 5% per annum to be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,727.98.

  22. BF v YU [2015] NZDT 742 (13 February 2015) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a wall-hung basin from Respondent after speaking to one of the salespeople / when the basin was removed from its box it was not able to be wall-hung / Applicant was told 20% would be deducted from the refund per Respondent’s terms and conditions / Applicant claimed the balance / Held: Respondent has not complied with guarantee as to fitness for purpose / Applicant made it known expressly that she wanted a wall-hung basin / Respondent is not entitled to make any deduction from refund amount / not lawful to contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and terms and conditions can only apply where there has been no breach of statutory guarantee / Applicant entitled to receive full refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29.48.

  23. CQ v XK 2015 NZDT 715 (10 February 2015) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant claimed for pre-accident valuation of car prior to sale, uneconomic to repair / Respondent counterclaimed for estimated repair costs to car she drove, not owned by her / Held: Respondent breached duty to act with reasonable care and due consideration for others / solely negligent for not giving way / drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 4.2 / costs claimed established, reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,020.35 / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

  24. BZ Ltd v YA [2014] NZDT 719 (12 December 2014) [PDF, 58 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out painting at a rental property / there was conversation about work to be done but nothing recorded in writing / parties have quite different accounts about what the extent of work was for the agreed price / Held: price charged by Applicant is reasonable for the amount of work done / even if Respondent thought other areas were included the price provided by Applicant was only for work they say it was and work that was actually done / Respondent liable to pay invoiced amount / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,945.

  25. DP v VK Ltd [2014] NZDT 753 (28 November 2014) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Contract / Agency / farm manager for Respondent employed applicant to rock pick paddocks / Applicant gave invoice for $9,948.08 / farm manager took first invoice to farm owner for approval and employed Applicant for further work / Applicant provided second invoice for $4,083.65 / Applicant claims for both invoices, totalling $14,031.17 / Held: farm manager had no apparent authority to employ a contractor / farm owner ratified farm manager’s authority retrospectively by agreeing to first invoice and saying Applicant could do further three hour’s work / if agent purports to act on behalf of principal without actual authority, absence of assent can be given retrospectively by principal through ratification / Applicant and farm manager say second work was not limited / second lot of work found on balance of probabilities to be limited to three hours / claim allowed in part, Respondent to pay first invoice and three hours for second invoice, totalling $10,862.33