Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant struck cattle beast owned by Respondent while driving his vehicle / Applicant and Respondent claimed damages / Held: both parties contributed to cause of crash / Respondent had a duty to warn drivers and exercise due care / Applicant failed his duty of care by not slowing significantly to ascertain what was happening ahead / Proportion of liability is 60% for Respondent and 40% for Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $7,657.48 / Claim allowed in part.
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.
2680 items matching your search terms
-
KG v TM [2025] NZDT 2 (22 January 2025) [PDF, 132 KB] -
DT & Ors v MU [2025] NZDT 24 (17 January 2025) [PDF, 182 KB] Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicants purchased racehorse from Respondent for $22,500, intending to use the horse for equestrian events / Shortly after purchase, horse exhibited behavioural issues / Veterinary investigations shows horse had congenital condition known as Kissing Spine / Applicants claimed refund of $22,500 plus $4,890.13 in associated costs / Held: Respondent made an innocent misrepresentation by stating the horse was suitable for eventing, which induced Applicants into contract / Horse not suitable for eventing / Although respondent unaware of the congenital condition, the misrepresentation entitled the Applicants to compensation / Under CCLA the Applicants could not cancel the contract but were entitled to compensation for their losses / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $27,390 / Claim allowed.
-
FO v SQ [2025] NZDT 19 (17 January 2025) [PDF, 128 KB] Contract / Applicant listed car for sale and Respondent placed only bid / Respondent refused to complete purchase as bid was accidental or made by someone else / Applicant claimed for order that Respondent pay $7500 as amount Applicant had bid / Held: contract formed when Respondent placed bid that became highest bid / Respondent breached contract by failing to pay agreed amount / Specific performance sought by Applicant not appropriate in circumstances as no reason that normal monetary relief would be inadequate / Costs of re-listing, re-registering and re-insuring car plus opportunity cost reasonable loss related to breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $550.17 / Claim allowed in part.
-
DC & EC v KI [2025] NZDT 18 (17 January 2025) [PDF, 120 KB] Contract / Applicants contracted Respondent to photograph their wedding / Contract provided for album, online gallery, video highlight, physical prints / Applicants received online gallery containing duplicate photos from only part of wedding / Applicants did not receive video or other physical items in contract / Applicants claimed $3800 as refund / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to provide agreed albums, prints, video highlight and other items outlined in contract / Respondent also breached term relating to online gallery as photos did not accurately represent entirety of day / Applicants entitled to be put back into position they would have been in if contract was performed / Respondent to provide Applicants all unedited photos and video footage and pay $1500 refund / Claim allowed.
-
DT & Ors v MU [2025] NZDT 1 (17 January 2025) [PDF, 97 KB] Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased racehorse from Respondent / Applicants experienced problems with poor behaviour from racehorse / Applicants asked to return racehorse and claimed full refund plus other costs / Held: Respondent made an innocent misrepresentation by saying racehorse was suitable for eventing / Racehorse had back condition and was not suitable for equestrian eventing / Applicant can claim for compensation / Racehorse cannot be returned / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $27,390.00 / Claim allowed.
-
J Ltd v XY [2025] NZDT 31 (16 January 2025) [PDF, 98 KB] Contract law / Property / Respondent signed commission agreement appointing Applicant as sole agent to sell business / Applicant introduced Respondent to potential buyer who decided to not proceed with sale / Respondent cancelled listing of business months later / Respondent’s business sold four years later to company formed by the earlier potential buyer / Applicant claimed $30,000 commission from Respondent / Held: Respondent not liable to pay commission to Applicant as Applicant’s introduction was not effective cause of Respondent’s business sale / Purchaser not introduced by agent during agreement period and sale occurred over three years after agreement ended / Contact between agent and buyer after introduction was general and not causative of sale / Sale initiated independently by conversation between Applicant and employee of buyer’s company / Claim dismissed.
-
QC v MG [2025] NZDT 34 (16 January 2025) [PDF, 186 KB] Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties own adjoining properties and there is a fence along the common boundary / Applicant believes that fence is no longer adequate / Applicant issued a fencing notice in 2024 with cost to be equally shared with Respondent / Respondent issued a cross-notice objecting new fence / Applicant sought order allowing fence to be replaced and for Respondent to pay half cost / Held: fence to be fully replaced / Costs to be shared / Applicant to pay extra for capping / Claim allowed.
-
KS v Q Ltd [2025] NZDT 16 (16 January 2025) [PDF, 115 KB] Consumer law / Acceptable quality / Consumer Guarantees Act 1986 / Applicant purchased mattress online for $549 plus $109 delivery / Applicant claimed $658 refund as mattress sagged on both sides after 3 months causing back pain and provided photos showing sagging / Respondent argued sagging due to expected foam compression, and said there was no defect as mattress low-priced, firmness subjective / Held: mattress not proven defective or below acceptable quality / Applicant’s photos unconvincing and price paid relevant to expectation of good’s performance / Applicant did not disclose mattress’ specific purpose or back condition to Respondent / Claim dismissed.
-
W Ltd v X Ltd [2025] NZDT 6 (14 January 2025) [PDF, 197 KB] Contract / Respondent was franchisee of Applicant’s business system / Second Respondent was Applicant’s guarantor / Applicant’s earnings has not met expectations / Respondent terminated contract with Applicant for abandonment, non-payment of franchise fees and disparagement / Applicant claims to be refunded for the franchise fees paid / Respondent counter claims for unpaid invoices / Held: Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear matters regarding misrepresentation / Respondent’s did not misrepresent Applicant with business model / Applicant breached contract by failing to pay invoices / Respondent’s counterclaim is allowed / Applicant to pay Respondent $30,000.
-
BH v M Ltd [2025] NZDT 7 (13 January 2025) [PDF, 214 KB] Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 “CGA” / Applicant hired Respondent to install steel roof, repair tiles on roof, supply and install new mains power supply, and the installation and ducting of new rangehood / Applicant claims refund for defects for all areas of work / Held: Goods are to be provided with reasonable skill and care / Respondent not liable for any issues regarding internal gutter and pitch / Respondent to remove roof and refund Applicant / Concrete tiles are in reasonable condition and Applicant’s tile claim not made / Drip tray to be replaced / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $8057.56.
-
BN & QN v EG [2024] NZDT 884 (22 December 2024) [PDF, 105 KB] Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicants purchased caravan after no issues identified in warrant of fitness (WOF) inspection by Respondent's company / Caravan renovations revealed rust affecting structural integrity / Applicants alleged Respondent breached FTA and claimed $19,764 for work done to restore caravan to roadworthy condition / Held: Respondent did not breach FTA nor was Respondent negligent in carrying out WOF / Applicants unable to prove corrosion or damage visible on day of WOF such that WOF standard would be breached / Insufficient evidence that WOF could not have been lawfully issued by Respondent / No basis for compensation / Claim dismissed.
-
NM & WM v CL & ES [2024] NZDT 896 (20 December 2024) [PDF, 295 KB] Contract law / Applicants sold property to Respondents / Parties agreed to licence for Applicants to occupy for one day post-settlement and $3000 performance bond to be held / Respondents held bond beyond return date because Applicants failed to provide keys, working heater and tidy garden / Respondents also said Applicants had trespassed on property / Applicants claimed $3000 as return of bond / Respondents counterclaimed $12062.62 / Held: Applicants breached contract by failing to provide a working bathroom heater at settlement / Respondents entitled to $1119.64 for heater installation / Respondents could not prove trespass occurred / No breach regarding garden or vacant possession / Respondents not entitled to compensation for time off work or travel for Tribunal hearing / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $1880.64 / Applicants ordered to pay Respondents $1119.64 / Claims accepted in part / Counterclaim accepted in part.
-
T Ltd v EO [2024] NZDT 814 (20 December 2024) [PDF, 201 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017/ Applicant claimed for work completed on Respondent’s behalf in relation to an employment issue / Respondent disputed that the Applicant was ever instructed / Respondent stated there was no contractual relationship between the parties / Held: evidence indicated that the Respondent did not accept the Applicant’s offer/ Respondent did not form a contract with the Applicant for their services / An individual not communicating that they do not want a business to act for them cannot be construed as acceptance / No valid contract between the Applicant and Respondent / Applicant had not been engaged / Claim dismissed.
-
H Ltd v NB [2024] NZDT 843 (20 December 2024) [PDF, 118 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to manufacture and install kitchen benchtops / Applicant carried out installation and issued invoice for unpaid balance / Respondent disputed invoice on grounds that she was not satisfied with installation / Applicant claimed payment for unpaid invoice / Held: minor issues identified by Applicant were remediable / Applicant had the right to remedy failure by carrying out repaired work / Applicant not given opportunity to remedy minor issues identified / Applicant failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in communicating with Respondent about the cooktop, fill and waterfall / Final product did not have the look that Respondent wanted to achieve / Respondent entitled to 25% compensation of total price / Respondent ordered to pay remaining invoice less compensation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,242.84 / Claim allowed in part.
-
BU & SI v UQ & CQ [2024] NZDT 811 (20 December 2024) [PDF, 99 KB] Contract / Misrepresentation / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased property from Respondents / Just prior to settlement, central heating unit developed a fault which could not be repaired prior to settlement / Applicants moved in and raised the issue with the selling agent who organised for it to be repaired / Applicant was advised that the unit was not sufficiently powerful to heat the lounge downstairs / Applicant claimed the lounge downstairs was cold and he had to install a gas heating unit worth $19,081.72 / Applicant believed he was misled as the property was sold as being a “lovely warm home” / Respondent stated he found the heating to be sufficient / Respondent submitted the house had been built to code / Held: evidence did not show the property was misrepresented / Whether the unit sufficiently heated the lounge was a subjective matter / At the time of sale, no specific representation about the effectiveness of the central heating unit / Claim not prov…
-
KD & SB v W Ltd [2024] NZDT 894 (19 December 2024) [PDF, 192 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 (IMCA) / Applicants purchased engineered oak floorboards from Respondents for $30879.56 / Applicants collected and stored floorboards for one year then had them varnished by a third party and installed by Respondent / Floorboards showed rippling and varnish issues / Applicants claimed $30,000 for replacement / Respondent counterclaimed $10,021.73 for unpaid invoice and interest / Applicants said floorboards not of acceptable quality and varnish not applied with reasonable care / Held: Floorboards were of acceptable quality but varnish had minor issues / ‘Telegraphing’ caused by moisture ingress likely occurred during storage by Applicants not prior to purchase / Storage container conditions and timing of damage supported finding water ingress occurred during Applicant’s storage / Varnish sheen was incorrect but insufficient evidence of inadequate thickness / Respondent offered t…
-
MT & SC v TD [2024] NZDT 888 (19 December 2024) [PDF, 111 KB] Property / Contract / Applicants purchased a house from the Respondent / Settlement occurred but the Respondent failed to remove his belongings from the property for a further 5 days / When Applicants took possession they found the house was infested with vermin / Vermin had wrecked electrical wiring and the carpets, both had to be replaced / Applicants claimed $18,244.00 comprising of numerous costs arising out of the breach of agreement such as pest control, additional accommodation, legal fees, loss of income, cleaning and electrical work / Held: Respondent breached the Sale and Purchase agreement with regards to the carpet and wiring as neither were in working order at the time of settlement / Some expenses claimed by the Applicant were too far removed from the breach of contract and were not reasonably foreseeable so have not been awarded, such as loss of income / Tribunal granted some expenses to a lesser extent than claimed by the Applicant such as legal fees and accommodation /…
-
EW v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 887 (19 December 2024) [PDF, 100 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased computer components from Respondent / Applicant discovered a small amount of damage on the motherboard but proceeded to install it only to discover that it could not contact the processor chip / Applicant then contacted Respondent who declined to replace the motherboard as it had been installed and so it could not rule out that the damage had been caused by installation, rather than being present on delivery / Applicant claimed $299.00, being the price he paid for the motherboard / Held: was more likely than not that the Applicant received the motherboard in a damaged state / Failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to receive a full refund of the purchase price of $299.00 / Claim allowed.
-
Q Ltd v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 883 (18 December 2024) [PDF, 203 KB] Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased ute from Respondent on basis it had new tyres, differential and WOF / Ute needed replacement clutch and rear differential and a turbo repair within months of purchase / Applicant claimed $15647 for repair costs / Held: Ute not of acceptable quality under CGA as reasonable consumer would not expect faults to key vehicle components to occur so shortly after purchase / CGA applies as ute was commonly used for personal use and parties had not contracted out of CGA in writing / Faults in culmination created failure of substantial character / Vehicle would have reduction in value below price paid but for repairs Applicant organised / Repair costs are fair and reasonable reflection of reduced value / Applicant entitled under s 18(3)(b) CGA to compensation of reduction in value / Respondent to pay Applicant $9385.17 / Claim accepted.
-
TG v ZT [2024] NZDT 826 (18 December 2024) [PDF, 200 KB] Tort / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Parties were in a romantic relationship for 80 months / Applicant claimed the Respondent took money from a joint bank account without his knowledge / All funds deposited in the account came from the Applicant / Respondent counterclaimed for compensation for lost income and other costs related to stress and harassment from the breakdown of the relationship / Respondent also claimed $28,350 for the work she did looking after the Respondent during their relationship after he suffered an injury / Held: Tribunal only had jurisdiction of the claim based in tort related to property / Taking of money from a bank account a form of economic loss / Money not defined as property in the legislation / Lack of jurisdiction to hear the claim / Respondent did not counterclaim for damage or loss of property in stress and harassment related compensation so unsuccessful claim / Respondent unsuccessful in claim for payment for looking after Applicant after he suffered a…
-
Y Ltd v DT & KG [2024] NZDT 886 (17 December 2024) [PDF, 242 KB] Contract / Negligence / Applicant provided emergency accommodation for 2 months to Respondents and their dogs / Significant damage to units discovered after Respondents left / Applicant and their insurer claimed $12,621.08 for damage / Held: Damage to Applicant's units caused by Respondents or their dogs with liability arising in contract and negligence / Undisputed that Respondents occupied units at relevant time and evidence shows damage occurred while Respondents occupied units / Damage was either willful or caused negligently by Respondents together or alone failing to take reasonable care to prevent damage / Respondents also signed registration forms accepting liability for any damage caused / Applicant and their insurer entitled to be returned to position they would have been in had damage not occurred / Respondents severally liable to pay $6310.54 each to Applicant's insurer / Applicant's insurer to pay $500 of $12,621 total to Applicant as compensation for excess paid / Claim a…
-
KI v ST [2024] NZDT 870 (17 December 2024) [PDF, 96 KB] Negligence / Applicant impacted Respondent's angus steers whilst driving / Applicant's vehicle was unrepairable / Applicant claimed $6,000 as estimated value of car pre-impact / Held: interference of an unknown third party most likely the reason for Respondent's gate being left open / Applicant did not provide evidence that the gate and fencing containing stock was of standard or quality insufficient for that purpose / Claim dismissed.
-
AI v HC [2024] NZDT 875 (16 December 2024) [PDF, 139 KB] Insurance / Respondent's vehicle collided with a vehicle / Respondent settled insurance claim with the owner of that vehicle / Applicant claimed Respondent also impacted his vehicle when it was parked and unattended / Applicant's insurer claimed $8,948.36 repair costs / Held: unknown who wrote evidence submitted by Applicant and therefore given no weight / Unlikely for Respondent to have collided with both vehicles while reversing / Applicant's vehicle had pre-existing frontal damage / Applicant's evidence insufficient to prove claim on balance of probabilities / Claim dismissed.
-
BE v W Ltd & KN [2024] NZDT 885 (15 December 2024) [PDF, 240 KB] Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1993 (FTA) / Applicant purchased house from Respondent with Second Respondent as estate agent / Applicant asked 2nd Respondent at open home about property boundary / 2nd Respondent said fence was on boundary with neighbouring property / Dispute arose with Neighbours after sale who informed Applicant that part of house encroached on their land / Neighbours told 2nd Respondent before sale about encroachment but vendor said issue resolved / Applicant claims $30,000 of legal, survey and council costs incurred in adjusting boundary through Court process / Held: 2nd Respondent's silence on potential encroachment was misrepresentation and therefore misleading conduct / 2nd Respondent did not take reasonable steps to resolve competing information about potential encroachment / Applicant had clearly asked about boundary and 2nd Respondent was silent despite professional standards creating positive duty to disclose and to avoid contravening ss 9 and 14 FTA / Appli…
-
QH v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 891 (13 December 2024) [PDF, 119 KB] Consumer law / Acceptable quality / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased second-hand vehicle manufactured by Respondent company / Vehicle type had common engine issues and manufacturer issued recall in 2019 / Applicant’s car head gasket failed and was repaired at Applicant’s cost after Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed vehicle had known engine defect affecting resale value and reliability / Applicant claimed $9000 to reflect well known issues and effect on resale value / Held: vehicle not proven to be of unacceptable quality / Car had no current mechanical issues and head gasket issue occurred when car was 10 years old and had driven 152000km / Tribunal accepted manufacturer’s obligations change over time with age and mileage of car / Applicant relied on anecdotal online sources without expert evidence / No proof that head gasket failure was due to systemic defect or that vehicle was unsafe or unfit for purpose / Claim dismissed.