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. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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...

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. AAP v ZZM [2012] NZDT 38 (15 November 2012) [PDF, 53 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Overseas parties / Applicant is an overseas company based in Australia / Respondent is a New Zealand company based in Christchurch with Australian clients / agreement between parties that Respondent would service some of the Applicant’s Australian-based clients / no written terms to the agreement / Respondent paid the Applicant in Australian dollars / Applicant sought to recover a number of outstanding invoices / the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 and Disputes Tribunals Rules 1989 entitled any person to commence proceedings in the Tribunal in the prescribed form / no issue of enforcement when Applicant resides overseas / District Court has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim by an overseas applicant / according to principles of conflict of laws, claim should be heard in accordance with Australian law / Disputes Tribunal not able to apply Australian law / claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction. 

  19. AEG v ZVP Ltd [2012] NZDT 339 (23 October 2012) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Bailment / Applicant left his trailer with the Respondent for a warrant of fitness / trailer left by the Respondent outside overnight and not in an area monitored by security camera / trailer stolen / held that a relationship of bailment existed / held that Respondent had been negligent in its care of the trailer while it was in its possession and failed to take reasonable care / Respondent liable for the full cost of the trailer.

  20. AAH v ZZT [2012] NZDT 39 (15 October 2012) [PDF, 51 KB]

    Jurisdiction / tort / pure economic loss / Applicant manufactured an additive to grapes / Respondent was contracted by a winemakers association to prepare a “spray schedule” for circulation to the members of the association / Respondent was of the opinion that the Applicant’s product should be on the schedule and accompanied by a statement saying that it may affect the flavour of the wine / Applicant argued that it has suffered loss as a result of the publication of this view / Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims in tort is limited to claims in tort in respect of any damage or injury to property / property refers to tangible property such as chattels and does not encompass alleged harm to pure economic interests, such as loss of a sale / claim outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / claim struck out.

  21. AEI and ZVN [2012] NZDT 273 (10 October 2012) [PDF, 46 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant argued that Respondent was negligent to the terms of a resource consent for work on adjacent property and claimed to recover his costs / Held: claim is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / parties had no contract / Applicant claimed that Respondent’s negligence caused financial loss / outside the scope of s 10(1) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 as not destruction, loss, damage or injury to, or recovery of, property / claim dismissed

  22. ADE v ZWV [2012] NZDT 186 (3 October 2012) [PDF, 47 KB]

    Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / Respondent a former employee of Applicant / Applicant overpaid Respondent $380.98 in his final pay / Respondent claims he can retain the overpayment pursuant to the Wages Protection Act 1983 / Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fee from the Respondent / issue as to jurisdiction / Tribunal has jurisdiction under quasi-contract to hear claim / Employment Relations Authority does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of overpayment to an employee after employment terminated / claim not founded in contract and Respondent has not breached a contract / quasi-contract / person liable to make restitution when unduly enriched / Respondent received money he was not entitled to through Applicant’s error / no legal reason justifying non-repayment / WPA does not apply as Applicant not seeking to deduct overpayment from future wages / Respondent not entitled to the money and has been unduly enriched by Applicant’s error / unjust for Respondent to reta...

  23. AAJ and AAK v ZZR [2012] NZDT 2 (28 September 2012) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent recommended investment plan to Applicants who signed a Management Agreement / Agreement involved Applicants mortgaging their home, borrowing money, receiving money, fees and investment of the balance with an investment company / Applicants gave loan to KL from the investment company who ultimately defaulted on the loan / Applicants claimed that Respondent’s conduct in advising them of investment plan was misleading / Held: investment scheme booklet failed to state the dependence upon re-investment of annual tax refunds / Respondent’s conduct in returning tax refunds to Applicants was misleading / investment plan was not suitable for Applicants / AMP Finance NZ Ltd v Heaven (1997) 8 TCLR 144 / s 11 Fair Trading Act 1986 / claim not statute-barred / s 43(5) Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent, as director, should be personally liable / Gloken Holdings Limited v The CDE Company Limited (HC Hamilton CP28/95, 24 June 1997) / claim allowed, Respondent ordere...

  24. ABJ Ltd & ABK v ZYT Ltd [2012] NZDT 66 (21 August 2012) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / lack of consideration / Director of Respondent offered to provide free accounting services to Applicants for two years during sale negotiations of a gym business / offer was confirmed in email after which Applicants arranged to transfer files from previous accountant / dispute arose over retention of an amount of purchase price from sale / Respondent advised Second Applicant that agreement to provide accounting services was cancelled / Applicants claimed two years’ accounting fees / Tribunal finds that there was agreement between parties to provide accounting services free for two years / this was not part of the Sale and Purchase Agreement / this was not legally binding as there was no consideration thus not enforceable / Applicants not contractually entitled to any compensation / offer was in the nature of a gratuitous offer / claim dismissed.