You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2016 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

234 items matching your search terms

  1. DS v VH Ltd [2016] NZDT 898 (11 February 2016) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Contract / Applicant wanted to purchase a car from Respondent to convert to taxi / parties made written and verbal agreements that Respondents would fix some issues with the car and Applicant would purchase it for $21,000 / Respondents would repay $1,000 deposit if car could not be converted / Applicant asked more questions about car after agreement made, was not satisfied with answers and sent an email to cancel order / Applicant claims for refund of deposit / Held: conditional contract was formed when deposit was paid and handwritten document was signed / Applicant was only entitled to cancel contract if conditions recorded on written agreement were not met / Applicant breached contract by invalid cancellation / deposit only refundable if contract terms not met / Respondent entitled to retain deposit / claim dismissed.

  2. DR v VI Ltd [2015] NZDT 877 (22 December 2015) [PDF, 119 KB]

    Contract / disagreement over invoice cost / Applicant hired Respondent to install hot water cylinder and change pipes to a high-pressure system / Respondent sent invoice for $1,298.20 / Applicant did not pay and seeks declaration that he is only liable to pay $700 / Held: law of contact provides for a party to pay for services performed under contract / Applicant liable to pay Respondent’s invoice in full / Respondent performed service Applicant contracted them to perform / Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove invoice not justified / claim dismissed, Applicant to pay full invoice of $1,298.20 to Respondent

  3. EB v UY [2015] NDT 867 (11 December 2015) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent performed renovation work on Applicant’s bathroom / several problems found with bathroom / Respondent performed remedial work / independent tile and waterproofing consultant advised applicant shower needed to be rebuilt / Applicant claims $1966.83 for remedial costs / Held: Respondent did not perform work with reasonable care and skill / finished product not of acceptable quality / Respondent handyman not tiler but still bound to meet statutory obligations towards customer under CGA / attempted remedies by Respondent unsuccessful / Applicant entitled to have work done by another supplier and recover costs from Respondent / Applicant also entitled to recover costs of independent inspection and report / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant remedial costs of $1966.83.

  4. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 126 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Applicant brought velvet boots to Respondent for resoling / when returned, Applicant noticed each boot was damaged and notified Respondent / Respondent undertook repair but left boots in worse state / Applicant claims refund for re-soling, at $35, and cost of replacement boots, at $700, plus Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA guarantee of providing service with reasonable care and skill as damage was caused during course of service provided / Applicant entitled to statutory remedies / s 32(b) and (c), CGA / Applicant entitled to reduction in value of service due to failure below price paid and any reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / reduction in value of service is its entire value of $35 due to serious nature of damage / given extent of damage, only remedy available is replacement of boots / Tribunal filing fee cannot be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay...

  5. EI v UR Ltd [2015] NZDT 838 (29 October 2015) [PDF, 112 KB]

    Bailment / Applicant left car in Respondent’s workshop overnight / the workshop burnt down and Applicant’s car was damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable to repair the car / Held: Respondent not at fault and damage occurred despite taking all reasonable precautions / evidence shows the cause of the fire was through arson / Respondent’s non-replacement of the workshop security cameras after having been stolen a week earlier not sufficient for finding fault for the fire / Applicant could have arranged insurance cover on the car to guard against this type of risk / claim dismissed.

  6. CV-v-XE-2015-NZDT-850-13-October-2015 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (RoadUser) Rule 2004, r 5.9 / Applicant and Respondent not insured / Applicantclaimed costs for his car that was written off and transport costs / HELD:Respondent failed to stop his vehicle / therefore, Tribunal found Respondentwas negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / claim allowed,Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,350 being the pre-accident value of carfixed by Tribunal / no evidence produced as to transport costs

  7. EJ v UQ Ltd [2015] NZDT 834 (29 September 2015) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a Jeep second hand which was covered by the balance of a 3-year manufacturer’s warranty / Respondent was the local authorised service repair centre for Jeep and performed 27 warranty claims for Applicant without cost to Applicant / Applicant claimed $10,887.51 from Respondent because Applicant was unhappy with the repairs / Held: no evidence to establish that the repairs performed by the Respondent failed / no evidence that wear and tear items should have been covered by a warranty claim / no failures established so nothing was recoverable / claim dismissed.

  8. CN v XN 2015 NZDT 833 (22 September 2015) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Contract / misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, section 6 / Applicant purchased horse for granddaughter after seeing advertisement on Trade Me / private sale / granddaughter inspected horse and rode on him on three occasions over a two-month period / Applicant claimed that Respondent did not inform her of horse’s complications, behavioural problems and that horse is unsafe / Held: onus on Applicant to establish horse was misrepresented, that Applicant induced to enter contract based on misrepresentation and that Applicant suffered damage as a result / no persuasive evidence that Respondent misrepresented horse / claim dismissed

  9. EL v UO [2015] NZDT 863 (18 September 2015) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased concert tickets via Trade Me from a seller who identified as the Respondent / concert was cancelled / Ticketmaster issued refunds to ticket purchasers / Applicant did not receive a refund from Respondent / Applicant claimed $1260 for refund received from Ticketmaster / Held: no contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent a victim of identity theft / Respondent not the seller / Respondent did not receive a refund / Respondent did not owe applicant any money / claim dismissed

  10. 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

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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 ...

  20. 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...

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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.

  24. 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.

  25. 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