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

247 items matching your search terms

  1. DL Ltd v VO [2016] NZDT 952 (17 June 2016) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Credit (Repossession) Act 1997 (C(R)A) / Respondent took out loan from Applicant of $8598 to purchase motor vehicle / loan secured against motor vehicle / Respondent was to pay $108.53 under consumer credit agreement / Respondent stopped making payments / Applicant repossessed and sold vehicle / Applicant claims $6,936.70 for shortfall following vehicle sale / Held: consumer credit agreement valid, can be enforced and was breached by Respondent / Applicant used all reasonable efforts to obtain best price for vehicle as required under C(R)A / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,649.20

  2. DZ v VA, VAV Ltd & VAVU Ltd [2016] NZDT 921 (9 June 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant arranged flights through the second and third Respondents / third Respondent disallowed Applicant to travel / second Respondent deducted cancellation fees and refunded balance to Applicant / Applicant claimed refund of fees deducted by second Respondent / Held: third Respondent did not provide its services to Applicant with reasonable skill and care / Applicant entitled to cancel contract with third Respondent because failure could not be remedied / third Respondent liable to pay Applicant damages in compensation / Applicant suffered consequential loss from third Respondent’s breach of the CGA which was the amount charged for second Respondent’s cancellation fees / claim allowed, third Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,550.

  3. DW v VD [2016] NZDT 914 (11 May 2016) [PDF, 154 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased a boat from Respondent without inspecting it or performing a sea test / boat had running issues and underwent repairs / Applicant claimed $15,000 on basis of misrepresentation of boat condition and fittings / Held: winch condition of boat misrepresented in advertisement by Respondent / condition of bilge pump misrepresented in advertisement / age of GPS fish finder misrepresented / no other misrepresentations found / caveat emptor, buyer beware principle applies / statements made after contract are not representations / Applicant’s claim brought six years after discovery of problems / Applicant only succeed in parts of claim that amount to misrepresentation / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2866.55.

  4. EG & EGE v UT & UTU [2016] NZDT 949 (21 April 2016) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Applicants purchased a property from Respondents / greywater was found to be discharging onto Applicants’ property / an investigation revealed septic system began overflowing when blocking plate removed from pipes / Applicants carried out extensive remedial and replacement work / Applicants claimed $15,000.00 from Respondents for their non-disclosure of the issue / Held: Respondent had no issues with the septic system since mid-1970s so had nothing to disclose when asked / no evidence to prove any problem occurred prior to the one the Applicant’s experienced / no other basis for claim / claim dismissed.

  5. DK v VP Ltd & VPV [2016] NZDT 944 (6 April 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA), ss 32 and 43 / Applicant left car at Respondent’s airport parking facility / employee damaged car while moving it / damage repaired at a cost of $2,275.16 by Applicant’s insurer / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer claim for that amount / Held: Applicant meets definition of consumer under CGA / Respondent’s terms and conditions do not exclude liability as employee was driving the car and Respondent cannot contract out of CGA, under s 43 / driving is an integral part of Respondent’s service and crashing the car is a failure of reasonable care and skill except in extraordinary circumstances / evidence not able to establish any extraordinary circumstances / Applicants entitled to remedy under s 32, CGA / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,275.16

  6. DY & DYD v VB [2016] NZDT 941 (1 April 2016) [PDF, 128 KB]

    Application for rehearing out of time / parties had 28 days after original hearing to file rehearing application / Tribunal received Respondent’s application six weeks out of time / Held: reason for delay alone would not prevent rehearing / Respondent had enough notice to produce evidence before original hearing / would be an unreasonable burden on Applicants to overturn original decision after full hearing / insufficient preparation for hearing not grounds to have matter reopened / leave to apply for rehearing out of time declined.

  7. DT v VG [2016] NZDT 939 (23 March 2016) [PDF, 125 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent had a side-on collision as Respondent changed lanes to the left, then came back to the right, colliding with Applicant’s vehicle / Held: Respondent fully moved into left lane as damage to Applicant’s car extends the entire left side which is not possible to occur if both vehicles are partially occupying same lane / Respondent liable in negligence for damage to Applicant’s car as did not ensure it was safe to change lanes back to the right / Applicant did not contribute to the impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,606.35 for repair and rental car costs

  8. CY-Ltd-v-XB-and-XBX-2016-892-21-March-2016 [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contract and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) / sale and purchase of land / Respondents stopped making payments for loan relating to purchase / Applicant claims amount outstanding / HELD: Tribunal found that Applicant is a creditor and that the agreement between the parties is a consumer credit contract under CCCFA / however, as Applicant did not comply with disclosure provisions under CCCFA, it cannot enforce consumer credit agreement / also, Applicant might not be registered as a financial service provider and may not be a member of any approved dispute resolution scheme / claim dismissed

  9. CP Ltd v XL Ltd 2016 NZDT 906 (16 March 2016) [PDF, 123 KB]

    Contract / sale and purchase of business / while restaurant equipment included on chattels list, equipment required to run restaurant not included / Applicant’s claim reduced to maximum amount claimable in Tribunal for one year’s hire of equipment not provided / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid balance of stock-in-trade / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to include all assets used to run business / while Applicant required to check and approve equipment, Applicant did not fail to perform due diligence / Applicant’s claim not challenged, Respondent’s counterclaim payable / claim and counter-claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $12,522.69

  10. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (RoadUser) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed againstRespondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collisionby opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent havingbreached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actualrepairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent orderedto pay insurance company $1,708.72

  11. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to replace existing grout in shower / nickel shower drain was scratched and first grout failed / Respondent removed and replaced it / second scratch made / Respondent denied fault for scratch / Applicant claimed $6000 for full replacement of shower drain and regrouting, and claimed remedial work was inadequate / Held: both scratches caused by Respondent / scratches constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill / insufficient evidence to show remedial work was not of acceptable quality / it is appropriate for another supplier to replace the shower drain / another grouting job will also be required / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600.00.

  12. DJ v VQ Ltd [2016] NZDT 897 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to hydro-seed lawn for $1,300 / grass was not growing well several weeks later / Applicant claims fence marked during spraying and claims full refund of $1,300 / Held: Applicant failed to establish evidence that Respondent’s service not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not make undertakings to provide ongoing lawn maintenance and lawn’s ultimate health depends on its ongoing care and watering / Applicant’s evidence unable to prove claims / claim dismissed

  13. 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.

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. FB v TY & TYY [2015] NZDT 1049 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from first Respondent which included mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI) / first Respondent not authorised by second Respondent (insurer) to issue MBI for that type of vehicle / insurer cancelled insurance policy and refunded premium / ABS control unit failed and was replaced / Applicant previously brought a claim against first Respondent in Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) / Applicant claimed damages against first and second respondent  for breach of CGA and loss of cover / Held: matter should not be relitigated / issues in dispute in earlier proceedings between same parties cannot be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal / issues raised in MVDT proceedings essentially the same / first Respondent had apparent authority to act on insurer’s behalf and approve insurance / first Respondent failed to take adequate care in supplying MBI services and provide MBI policy fit for Applicant’s purpose / ins...

  17. 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...

  18. 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.

  19. 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

  20. 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.

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. 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

  24. 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

  25. 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