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. ABG v ZYW [2011] NZDT 88 (5 September 2011) [PDF, 71 KB]

    Agency / Second Respondent was Applicant’s managing agent which was ordered to pay $1,500.00 as exemplary damages for breach of quiet enjoyment and harassment to tenants in a Tenancy Tribunal order / Second Respondent paid the tenants and deducted this sum from the rent collect for Applicant as landlord / Applicant claimed to recover funds paid by the Second Respondent to tenants / Held: agency contract was between Applicant and Second Respondent / liability only arose because of the fault of Second Respondent for reasons given by Tenancy Tribunal / property management authority contract could not excuse Second Respondent’s liability / indemnity clauses not applicable / agent has an obligation to act lawfully or in compliance with the Residential Tenancies Act / Second Respondent did not act properly, acted unlawfully and breached Act / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,500.00.

  2. ADJ v ZWQ [2011] NZDT 167 (16 August 2011) [PDF, 51 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicant purchased chainsaw from Respondent on Trade Me / chainsaw would not start and so returned it for a replacement / Respondent repaired it, further damaging it / Applicant sought to reject chainsaw and obtain refund of purchase price / Applicant bought chainsaw on basis on Respondent’s description on Trade Me and did not have opportunity to inspect it before purchase / chainsaw did not appear to have been damaged in transit / held that chainsaw was not of merchantable quality under s 16(b) Sale of Goods Act 1908 / remedy for breach of a condition is cancellation on contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to refund the purchase price.

  3. AEC Ltd v ZVS [2011] NZDT 299 (25 July 2011) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Contract / Respondent entered into contract for Applicant to convert New Zealand dollars into Chinese currency / Applicant effected the exchange but Respondent failed to pay / Applicant reversed transaction and suffered loss / Applicant claimed for loss suffered / Held: Applicant was not in breach of previous foreign exchange contract / contract was formed over the telephone at the exchange rate offered and accepted on that day / Applicant was not limited to actual loss but entitled to damages on the basis of rate agreed by Respondent / interest awarded as Respondent kept Applicant out of money for no good reason / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,135.64

  4. ACS v ZXJ [2011] NZDT 142 (12 July 2011) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Contract / certainty of contract / Third Applicant owns property adjoining land which has a forest owned by Respondent / Respondent decided to log its forest and in return for using Third Applicant’s paddock for the harvesting, it would provide digger hours and grant access to hunt to Applicants on Respondent’s block after logging had finished / harvest operation ceased and Respondent advised Second Applicant that access would not be granted / Respondent subsequently finished logging without using Third Applicant’s paddock / Applicants claimed for the value they placed on the hunting rights / Held: lack of finite term of the contract did not prevent it coming into existence, the start date was to be when logging had finished although no end date was discussed / Respondent breached its agreement from refusing access / damages claimed reduced as it was unrealistic to expect hunting access would last indefinitely / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Third Applicant $5,828.00.

  5. ADH v ZWS [2011] NZDT 169 (28 June 2011) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Cancellation of contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Respondent developed a static website for Applicant’s gardening business / Applicant subsequently requested change and agreed to a dynamic database-driven website / Applicant paid with three cheques but after the first was banked he cancelled the second and third / Applicant claimed refund of the first cheque paid / Held: parties did verbally agree to alter the scope of contract at the new price / if Applicant had not agreed to the more expensive site he would not have written out the cheques / protection under s 31(1) Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 extends only to circumstances where price has not been discussed / parties had agreed on price / website was a database-driven site with reasonable functionality / Applicant’s cancellation of cheques and refusal to proceed amounted to repudiation / Respondent entitled to cancel and claim relief under ss 7(2) and 9(2)(b) Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / but Tribunal unable to award debt...

  6. ADP Ltd & JL Insurance Ltd v ZWK [2011] NZDT 153 (16 June 2011) [PDF, 77 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicant purchased chainsaw from Respondent on Trade Me / chainsaw would not start and so returned it for a replacement / Respondent repaired it, further damaging it / Applicant sought to reject chainsaw and obtain refund of purchase price / Applicant bought chainsaw on basis on Respondent’s description on Trade Me and did not have opportunity to inspect it before purchase / chainsaw did not appear to have been damaged in transit / held that chainsaw was not of merchantable quality under s 16(b) Sale of Goods Act 1908 / remedy for breach of a condition is cancellation on contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Respondent ordered to refund the purchase price.

  7. AEB v ZVT Ltd [2011] NZDT 295 (30 May 2011) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 / Applicant ordered two batches of Warrego bricks from Respondent to build a house / having put up significant portion of second batch, Applicant’s bricklayer advised difference in shades / Applicant claimed the cost to plaster over the bricks / Held: variations in shade is the nature of Warrego brick / no breaches of ss 15 or 16 Sale of Goods Act 1908 as Warrego bricks were supplied, fit for their purpose and of merchantable quality / Applicant accepted bricks supplied and could not reject / even if there had been breach, Applicant suffered no loss or damages / claim dismissed.

  8. ACG Ltd v ZXX Ltd [2011] NZDT 157 (9 May 2011) [PDF, 112 KB]

    Fair Trading Act 1986 / false or misleading representations / Applicant, relying on certificate of analysis, purchased copper sulphate from Respondent / Applicant discovered that product contained additive which precipitated out and ruined end product / Applicant claimed compensation for consequential losses from rebottling affected product / Held: certificate provided by Respondent was a representation / Applicant relied on composition in certificate to determine suitability / certificate falsely represented composition and breached s 13(a) of Fair Trading Act 1986 / shipping label and two per cent impurities allowance not significant / Respondent’s terms and conditions does not exclude Fair Trading Act 1986 provisions / held in Smythe v Bayley’s Real Estate Limited (1993) 5 TCLR 454 that not possible to exclude the provisions of the FTA / Applicant entitled to compensation under s 43(2)(d) FTA as losses claimed were reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $840...

  9. ADI v ZWR Ltd [2011] NZDT 168 (8 April 2011) [PDF, 77 KB]

    Contract / Applicant’s children parked his vehicle at Respondent’s car park and paid for parking until 8.00am the following morning/ returned to car later in the evening to find car park closed / unable to recover the vehicle until the following morning / returning the following morning, Applicant found that Respondent had given him a ticket for parking beyond the period that had been paid for / A argued that it was unreasonable for R to issue a Parking Breach Notice as he was prevented from recovering his vehicle as the car park had closed / Held: that signs displaying the car park closing time and the terms and conditions displayed adjacent to the ticket machine are incorporated into the parking contract between the parties / Applicant’s claim is dismissed / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $93.33 pursuant to s 11(2)(b), Disputes Tribunal Act 1988.

  10. ADL v ZWO Ltd [2011] NZDT 163 (31 March 2011) [PDF, 61 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee that goods comply with description / Applicant purchased a second-hand engine from Respondent which required additional parts for it to be installed in his vehicle / Applicant paid his mechanics to install the engine and for additional parts then claimed the entire cost of fitting the new engine / Applicant claimed that Respondent breached Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, guarantee that goods comply with description / Held: engine supplied by Respondent did comply with description / Applicant would have had to incur labour cost even if specific missing components were present as they would have needed to be replaced / rest of the parts could not be considered part of the motor but items that would typically need replacing at the time of engine replacement / claim dismissed.

  11. ADO v ZWL Ltd [2011] NZDT 160 (30 March 2011) [PDF, 70 KB]

    Limitation / Limitation Act 1950 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent in 1996 / he was unable to afford repayments so it was returned in 1997 / in 1998 Respondent notified Applicant more money was owed, which was paid off over a number of years / Applicant claimed he did not owe the money and it should be repaid / Held: Applicant’s cause of action arose in 1998 when Respondent sought further payment / Applicant precluded from bringing action after 2004 under s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 / s 24(b) Limitation Act 1950 could not provide relief to Applicant as he was not affected by disability “on the date when any right of action accrued” which was 1998 / Applicant’s claim outside limitation period / claim struck out.

  12. ADG v ZWT [2011] NZDT 173 (3 March 2011) [PDF, 78 KB]

    Limitation / Limitation Act 1950 / in 2003 Applicant provided legal services to Respondent and issued a number of invoices / Respondent paid invoices except for the final two which were revised by the Auckland District Law Society / Applicant issued revised statement in 2005 which was then paid by Respondent / Applicant claimed that it was entitled to appropriate Respondent’s payment in 2005 to the oldest invoice, that outstanding invoices was single debt thus part-payment extended limitation period to 2011 / Held: Respondent made no express appropriation at time of payment but it could be implied that it was intended to be appropriated against the last two invoices / Applicant was not entitled to appropriate Respondent’s payment to the oldest invoice / invoices in this claim comprised separate debts and each had a separate and distinct cause of action / Applicant’s claim time barred pursuant to s 4(1) Limitation Act 1950 / claim dismissed.

  13. ADM Ltd v ZWN and ADN v ZWM [2011] NZDT 162 (14 January 2011) [PDF, 104 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / First Respondent hired a truck and excavator from First Applicant / truck collided with power pole while driving / First Applicant repaired the truck and claimed for the excess under terms and conditions / First Respondent counterclaimed that terms and conditions were misleading, excess and costs incurred / Held: First Applicant’s terms and conditions were clear that the hirer is responsible for any damage to hired equipment during term of hire / should the hirer pay “damage waiver”, hirer is then only liable for first $1,000.00 (plus GST) / First Applicant did not engage in misleading conduct under s 11 of FTA / First Respondent had opportunity to review terms and conditions and accepted / no suggestion made by First Applicant that “damage waiver” extended to third party damage / First Respondent formed mistaken impression of cover / claim allowed, counterclaim dismissed, First Respondent ordered to pay First Applicant $1,125.00.

  14. AED and AEE v ZVR [2010] NZDT 287 (26 November 2010) [PDF, 54 KB]

    Dog Control Act 1996 / damages under s 63(1) / claim for costs incurred as a result of attack by Respondent’s dogs on Applicants’ stock/ costs relate to sheep killed, veterinary bills and related expenses / dog owner liable under DCA, s 63(1) for damage caused by dogs / on balance of probabilities, dogs that attacked sheep likely to be Respondent’s dogs / Applicants’ neighbour made convincing identification that dogs caught by Applicants were the same dogs he saw the previous day running from Applicants’ property / First Applicant saw same dogs worrying sheep before she caught the dogs / Respondent identified as owner of the dogs / Respondent ordered to pay $2,789.90.

  15. ADW Ltd v ZWC Ltd [2010] NZDT 243 (25 November 2010) [PDF, 56 KB]

    Contract / declaration of non-liability / Applicant was fitting a premises with an outdoor awning / Respondent gave estimate for how much work would cost / total amount the Respondent invoiced exceeded estimates / Applicant claims it is not liable for the Respondent’s final invoice of $618.75 (incl GST) / contacts for work done imply a term that the price will be reasonable / where price is discussed the law follows the agreement between parties / where estimate is provided the courts will generally allow cost to vary by plus or minus 20 per cent / Respondent’s invoices were nearly twice its estimate / held that the Respondent charged more than it was entitled to pursuant to the agreement between the parties / Applicant not liable to pay the $618.75 (incl GST).

  16. ACB v ZYC and ZYB [2010] NZDT 77 (9 November 2010) [PDF, 79 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant claims boundary fence needs replacing / Respondents disagree, state fence only needs repairing / Applicant claims Respondents liable for half the cost of replacing the fence under the Act / Respondents counterclaim that fence only needs repairs / relevant law: ss 9, 22 and 24(a) of Fencing Act 1978 / adjoining occupiers of land not divided by adequate fence liable to contribute in equal proportions to cost of work on fence / Applicant’s reports show fence not adequate and repairs would not make it adequate / cheapest quote for replacing fence is $5,068.74 / Respondent liable under s 9 to contribute half the cost of replacing fence / given position of Applicant’s driveway, fence is to be built as close as practicable to the boundary line / Applicant’s claim allowed, Respondents to pay Applicant $2,534.37 within 21 days / Respondents’ counter-claim dismissed.

  17. ADZ v ZVZ [2010] NZDT 245 (3 November 2010) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Respondent while driving had diabetic hypoglycaemic episode, lost control of vehicle and collided with Applicant’s parked vehicle / Applicants claimed costs of repairing the damage / Held: medical evidence indicated that the diabetic hypoglycaemic episode was readily foreseeable / Respondent had condition for over 30 years, skipped dinner and undertook vigorous exercise / Respondent should have reasonably appreciated risk / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $13,182.09.

  18. ADX and ADY v ZWB and ZWA [2010] NZDT 244 (23 September 2010) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Contract / Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 / Second Respondent is a minor and agreed to sell horse to Applicants / parties agreed that First Respondent acted as Second Respondent’s agent and had authority to sell horse / after Applicant paid agreed sum, Second Respondent changed his mind about selling horse / Applicants claimed for enforcement of contract / Held: Second Respondent’s reason for wanting to cancel contract was his deep attachment to horse / ordinarily this is irrelevant but Tribunal is to take wider perspective under s 6(3) Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 / having regard to subject matter and nature of contract, it was not appropriate to enforce contract although it was fair and reasonable / Applicants entitled to compensation under s 7(1) Minors’ Contract Act 1969 for inconvenience, expense and emotional impact / claim dismissed, Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,000.00 compensation.

  19. AEA v ZVU Ltd [2010] NZDT 251 (3 September 2010) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantees as to acceptable quality and fitness for purpose / Applicant purchased a pair of basketball shoes made by a major shoe manufacturer / claimed the pull tab on the shoe had agitated his ankle and caused bleeding / sought refund on the basis that the shoes were not reasonably fit for the purpose for which the supplier represented they would be fit under s 8(1)(b) / Applicant made his own shoe selection and did not rely on the Respondent’s staff’s expertise / Respondent produced evidence showing this and a similar style of shoe had been sold in New Zealand without complaint / evidence from podiatrist suggesting Applicant was not wearing correct socks for his foot size / held that the Applicant’s injury was likely to be a case of needing to “wear in the shoes” and blisters are not uncommon with new shoes / claim dismissed.

  20. AAT and AAU as Trustees of LM Trust v ZZH [2010] NZDT 17 (24 August 2010) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Contract / lease / implied terms / Respondent leased farm property from Applicants (trustees of LM Trust) / under Lease, the lessee was not required to leave any silage / however after lease was signed there was oral agreement between parties that Respondent could use part of a silage pit as long as it was replaced at end of the lease / Respondent emptied silage pit but did not replace it on termination of lease / Applicants claimed for the value of silage / Held: it could not be found that oral agreement existed given the conflict of recollections and lack of documentation / insufficient evidence to find there was meeting of the minds on the matter / requirement to replace could not be implied as it was inconsistent with express terms of the Lease and could also not be implied by custom or usage / claim dismissed.

  21. AAX and AAY as Trustees of AP Trust v ZZF Ltd [2010] NZDT 18 (13 August 2010) [PDF, 87 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicants purchased insurance policy for their property underwritten by Respondent / two claims were made under the policy (2006 and 2009) / for 2006 claim, Respondent only paid out on one item claimed as it took the view that an excess applied to each item and only one item was recoverable / for 2009 claim, Respondent deducted a landlord excess rather than an owner occupied excess / Applicants claimed for the items not paid out in the claims / Held: policy enabled Applicants to aggregate their claims entitling Respondent to only deduct one excess / policy could be read as enabling aggregation of related claims to avoid multiple excesses / damage from Applicant’s tenancy to be considered as a “series” of events from one original source / Distillers Co Bio-Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1974) 130 CLR 1 / Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Swinbank (1999) 10 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-439 / distinguished QBE Insurance Ltd v MGM Plumbing Pty Limited [2003] ...

  22. AAR and AAS v ZZI Ltd [2010] NZDT 14 (21 July 2010) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 and non est factum / Applicants entered into Agreement for Sale and Purchase of property from Respondent and paid deposit / however, settlement never took place as Applicants thought property included a garage and library but Agreement only related to the garage / Applicants claimed the return of their deposit / Held: there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent misled Applicants / parties were at cross-purposes, only Applicants were mistaken about the subject matter of Agreement thus no mutual mistake / relief precluded by s 6(2)(a) Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 / Applicants did not exercise reasonable care to establish contents of Agreement, therefore could not rely on plea of non est factum / claim dismissed.

  23. AAB v ZZY [2010] NZDT 20 (21 July 2010) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Contractual Mistakes Act 1974 / Applicant entered into a contract to purchase Respondent’s takeaway business / Applicant paid deposit upon signature, with settlement to take place one month later / realised deep fryer and fan were not part of the sale shortly before settlement / sought to cancel the agreement and return deposit / claim for $1,000 for deposit / Respondent counterclaimed for $9,000, seeking completion of the purchase / held that the Applicant was unable to establish that they agreement, construed objectively, obliged the Respondent to supply all furniture and fittings / Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent had ever represented that he owned the deep fryer, fan or other chattels, so claim under Contractual Remedies Act failed / no unilateral or mutual mistake for purposes of s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act / not just for the Respondent to enforce the agreement and require balance to be paid when parties had negot...