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. 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.

  2. 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...

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. AGB and AGC v ZVU [2013] NZDT 398 (1 May 2013) [PDF, 82 KB]

    Negligence / standard of care / Applicant was driving in strong winds behind the Respondent / material flew out from the Respondent’s trailer and damaged Applicant’s car / issue of whether Respondent took reasonable care to ensure that his trailer load was secure / Respondent argued that damage was caused due to an extraordinary act of nature / Held: Respondent does not have a defence that the cause of damage was due to an extraordinary act of nature / Respondent was aware of the weather conditions and should have secured his trailer load accordingly / Respondent to pay $736.58 to the Applicants, being the costs of repair.

  8. ABV v ZYH [2013] NZDT 54 (22 April 2013) [PDF, 63 KB]

    Credit contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to disclose all fees that would have to be paid over life of home loan / claimed breach of s 17 of CCCFA / claimed the fees and charges were oppressive under s 120 of CCCFA / sought refund of $11,209.38 / Held: no breach of s 17 / Respondent’s contract included provision for changes to be made to fees / Applicant received notice of changes / oppressive is more than just unfair or unreasonable / no evidence that new fees were exceptional or inconsistent with normal market practice / fees were validly charged / Applicant only entitled to refund of expired insurance fee $748.00 as Applicant had maintained insurance throughout term.

  9. ACK Ltd and ACL v ZXU Ltd and ZXT Ltd [2013] NZDT 84 (17 April 2013) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / First Applicant arranged with Second Applicant for broken trailer to be transported to First Respondent’s storage yard / trailer and various goods on the trailer were damaged / some of the goods on the trailer were owned by Second Applicant / Applicants claim that Respondents are liable for damage to trailer and goods as the contracting carrier / Tribunal finds that neither Respondents were the contracting carrier / Applicant contacted Second Applicant directly and made arrangements / therefore Second Applicant was the contracting carrier / any subsequent billing arrangements cannot change the contracting carrier for the purposes of the Carriage of Good Act / claim dismissed.

  10. ABO and ABP v ZYP [2013] NZDT 65 (2 April 2013) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicants bought second-hand washing machine from Respondent on Trade Me / one month later the machine stopped working / Respondent declined to replace or repair machine / Applicants claimed compensation / Held: Respondent had met his contractual obligations / washing machine was fit for purpose at the time and able to be used for normal purposes under s 16 Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicants took risk by buying a second-hand machine / claim dismissed.

  11. ABC v ZZB [2013] NZDT 34 (25 March 2013) [PDF, 78 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicant obtained travel insurance from Respondent for a trip / policy provided cover for loss, damage or theft of baggage or personal items resulting from an unexpected incident / Applicant’s wife’s handbag was stolen by two men riding a motorcycle / Applicant made a claim which was declined by Respondent / he then complained to the Insurance & Savings Ombudsman which declined to uphold his complaint / Applicant claimed for the value of the stolen items / Held: Applicant was not entitled to recover under the policy / he failed to provide the police report requested to substantiate his claim as a condition of the policy / Respondent was entitled to reject claim / Applicant provided false information in support of insurance claim / policy void if false information given / inconsistencies went beyond the weight and value of the gold biscuit and included how the alleged theft occurred / claim dismissed.

  12. ABZ and ACA Ltd v ZYE and ZYD Ltd [2013] NZDT 93 (25 March 2013) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Respondent’s car collided with Applicant’s car / Applicant and her insurer claimed for assessed cost of repairs / Respondent accepts liability for incident and respondent’s insurer accepts that repair costs fair / however before repairs undertaken, Applicant’s car involved in subsequent incident affecting the same area of the car to be repaired / a second tortfeasor will not be liable if their actions caused no further damage or merely duplicated existing damage / Performance Cars Ltd v Abraham [1962] 1 QB 33 / Tribunal finds that the two incidents were separate and distinct and that repair costs relating to the first damage were established via an assessment / the need for repairs due to the first incident already existed for which the respondent acknowledged responsibility and agreed to pay for repairs / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $1,307.26.

  13. BH v YS and YSY [2013] NZDT 430 (21 March 2013) [PDF, 193 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Applicant claimed $320 being the amount of a dividend distributed to Respondent landlords by a trust in respect of electricity used and paid for under his residential tenancy agreement / claimed he is entitled to that amount on the basis of a collateral oral agreement / Held: difficult to believe BH would decline to accept filing of the claim on the ground that no bond had been received and have great concerns about this if it has / because claim relates to dispute between landlord and tenant and relates to a tenancy, the Tenancy Tribunal is the appropriate tribunal to hear the claim / claim struck out.

  14. AFU v ZUC and ZUB [2013] NZDT 260 (21 March 2013) [PDF, 54 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant’s couch was damaged when the First Respondent washed the house the Applicant lived in / Held: the Respondent breached its duty of care to the Applicant in failing to take reasonable care to ensure furniture was not damaged when cleaning the Applicant’s house / exclusion of liability where joinery was not weathertight as set out in the contract was no applicable as there was evidence to suggest the joinery was weathertight and it was due to deficient advice by the Respondent that the couch got wet / Respondent to pay $900, taking into account depreciation in value of the couch since purchased.

  15. ACC and ACD v ZYA [2013] NZDT 111 (18 March 2013) [PDF, 46 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / contract / Respondent was to lay kitchen tiles / Applicants dissatisfied with work  /  Respondent refused to carry out remedial work  / Held: tiles laid in an uneven manner  /  Respondent’s workmanship not carried out with reasonable skill and care  / Applicants had not paid Respondent for work so only entitled to cost of extra work required over and above price agreed with Respondent  / not entitled to costs associated with hearing of the claim  / not entitled to cost of tool to cut gib-board as tool would be available for other uses around home or workshop / Applicants awarded $750.68.

  16. AAN and AAO v ZZP, ZZO and ZZN in their capacities as Trustees of FT Family Trust [2013] NZDT 8 (16 March 2013) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicants signed Agreement for Sale and Purchase with Respondents (trustees of FT Family Trust) for property that was advertised as “architecturally designed” / before settlement, Applicants discovered this was not the case and after settlement, discovered other problems with the property / Applicants claimed for the premium they paid for an architecturally designed house and repair costs / Held: FT Family Trust had undertaken faulty wiring in breach of clause 6.2(5) of the Agreement / Applicants not induced to enter contract by misrepresentation as they became aware of mistake before confirming Agreement and did not raise the matter / Applicants unable to establish that agent ever made a promise or representation / FT Family Trust liable for faulty wiring / claim allowed (in part), Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $362.89.

  17. ABS Ltd v ZYL and ZYK [2013] NZDT 36 (15 March 2013) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Tort / trespass / nuisance / Respondents’ cattle trespassed on Applicant’s land / damage caused to Applicant’s plants / Applicant claimed for condition of fence and cost of replacement plants / cost of replanting alone exceeded Tribunal’s jurisdiction of $15,000 / based on witness evidence, held that the claim was not brought within six years from the date of the trespass or nuisance / nor was the claim brought within three years from the date the damage was discovered / “reasonable discoverability” test / Invercargill City Council v Hamlin [1996] 1 NZLR 513 (PC) / Trustees Executors Ltd v Murray [2008] NZCCLR 11 (SC) / claim is statute-barred under Limitation Act 1950, s 59 / limitation defences apply in the Tribunal / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988, s 10(5) / claim dismissed.

  18. AAZ and ABA v ZZE and ZZD [2013] NZDT 29 (25 Febuary 2013) [PDF, 112 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) and Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / after viewing a cast glass sculpture, Applicants agreed to purchase it from a gallery owned by First Respondent /  Applicants were surprised by different appearance of the piece on delivery / Applicants claimed cancellation of the contract / Held: the sculpture delivered to Applicants was the same one they saw in the gallery / light has significant effect on visual characteristics of glass sculpture / First Respondent did not display piece in misleading way thus no breach of s 10 of FTA / subjective disagreement as to whether bubbles in piece are a defect therefore not proven on objective basis that it was not of “acceptably quality” defined in s 7 of CGA/ no breach of s 28 of CGA as First Respondent could not be reasonably expected to know particular aesthetic concerns of customers / unreasonable burden to impose duty on seller to show a piece or explain how it may look in a range of different circumstance...

  19. ABE & ABF v ZYZ, ZYY, ZYX as Trustees [2013] NZDT 86 (8 February 2013) [PDF, 61 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / parties own neighbouring properties / Applicants wished to replace fence between properties and served notice setting out proposal / Respondents responded with cross-notice saying they did not agree with proposal but Applicants replaced fence anyway / Applicants claimed contribution to the cost of the replacement fence / Held: Respondents were not liable to contribute to the cost of work done as s 10(4)(c) Fencing Act 1978 provides that a neighbour is not liable to contribute to the cost of any work done before the dispute is resolved / Applicants proceeded to replace fence notwithstanding disagreement / work was done before the dispute was resolved by agreement or the Court / claim dismissed.

  20. AEN and AEO v ZVJ Ltd, ZVI and ZVH [2013] NZDT 336 (23 January 2013) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants’ property adjoins property owned by First Respondent / Applicants issued a Fencing Notice which was delivered to the registered office of First Respondent but addressed to Second Respondent / Second Respondent received the notice but chose not to respond / Applicants proceeded to build the fence as they did not receive a cross notice / Applicants claimed for a half share of the cost of the fence / Held: First and Second Respondents are separate legal entities but notice fulfilled the purpose of service / mistake was immaterial / Applicants issued valid notice and as First Respondent did not issue a cross notice, it was deemed to have accepted the proposals and liable to pay the half share / s 11(3) Fencing Act 1978 / issue of fencing being over-height dealt with by Applicants / fence boundary line in accordance with s 22 Fencing Act 1978 / claim allowed, First Respondent is ordered to pay Applicants $1,600.00.

  21. ACQ v ZXN and ZXM Ltd [2013] NZDT 134 (20 January 2013) [PDF, 52 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant (on far left lane) and First Respondent (between far left and middle lanes) were travelling on motorway in peak hour traffic / Respondent indicated right and began to move right but moved back left after seeing Applicant’s motorcycle / however, Applicant in the meantime committed to evasive action which resulted in the motorcycle being dropped to the ground / motorcycle to be written off / Applicant claimed for the pre-accident value of the motorcycle less amount obtained for the wreck / Held: there was no negligence on the part of First Respondent / not proven that Respondent left his lane / no breach of rule 2.3(2)(b) Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / claim dismissed.

  22. AGE and AGH v ZVR Ltd [2012] NZDT 393 (23 November 2012) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Negligence / vicarious liability / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicants claim Respondent’s road sweeper showered stones and gravel onto their car, causing damage / Applicants claim for the cost of damage due to Respondent’s negligence / issue of whether Respondent was negligent in the operation of the road sweeper / Held: Respondent was not negligent / Respondent operated the road sweeper in accordance with industry standards / Respondent’s duty of care to other road users was not breached / Applicants’ claim is dismissed.

  23. ACE v ZXZ [2012] NZDT 136 (19 December 2012) [PDF, 69 KB]

    Contract / quantum meruit / faulty medicines / Respondent faxed 900 New Zealand pharmacies including Applicant instructing recall of a suspected faulty medication / same recall between another pharmacy and Respondent decided in District Court / Ian Johnson Pharmacy Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline NZ Ltd DC Manukau, CIV-2010-092-1947, 26 September 2011 / Applicant claimed for its time and costs spent effecting the recall / Held: District Court decision acted as a precedent for this claim / Applicant entitled to payment for services in contract or alternatively on quantum meruit basis / fax sent to Applicant constituted a contract and services requested were over and above those normally provided / Applicant was entitled to reasonable payment for its services / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $253.00.