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.

Search results

436 items matching your search terms

  1. TQ v OD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1426 (16 March 2021) [PDF, 188 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant had house built by Respondent / Applicant ordered grey bricks / Respondent provided brown bricks and said they would look different when laid / Applicant raised issue again halfway through / Respondent laid entire wall / Applicant claims Respondent misrepresented colour blend of bricks / Applicant claims Respondent failed to provide reasonable care and skill / Applicant claims $27,668.00 / Held: Respondent misrepresented colour blend of bricks / Held: Respondent failed to provide reasonable care and skill / Applicant could have stopped brick laying earlier / Respondent provided partial remedy by painting weatherboards of house to fit colour scheme / claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $3,000.00.

  2. KC v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1352 (12 March 2021) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Contract / Education and Training Act 2020 / Applicant signed up for course and subsequently cancelled / Applicant claimed that Respondent failed to notify him that no refund could be given if a cancellation was within 14 days of course commencement / s 354 and 357 Education and Training Act 2020 / Respondent unaware of its obligation under the Act / No evidence that cancellation caused any loss to Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to full refund of $2,200

  3. NC v MD [2021] NZDT 1348 (12 March 2021) [PDF, 208 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent approached Applicant about removing plants on the boundary of their properties / No fence to delineate boundary / Applicant had no objections to proposed work as claimed work was all on Respondent’s side / Respondent’s contractors removed a mature tree from Respondent’s property / Respondent claimed $1500.00 for the tree / Held: Respondent gave inadequate instructions and supervision to her contractors that amounted to negligence / Respondent liable to pay $665.00 for new tree and compensation / Claim granted.

  4. DC v JBD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1379 (11 March 2021) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Breach of contract / Applicant arranged to sell all of its paintings  through the Respondent / Applicants arranged for unsold paintings to be uplifted from Respondent’s premises to a gallery / Applicants claimed one of the paintings went missing / Applicants claimed for original price of the painting / Whether the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Whether there was a contract that the painting would be insured by the Respondent on its premises / Whether the Respondent has breached its responsibility as a bailee to take reasonable care of the painting / Whether Applicants were entitled to compensation for the painting / Held: applicants did not prove it was more likely than not that the painting was delivered to the Respondent / Honest belief something was done not the same thing as whether it was actually done / Claim dismissed

  5. NN v TD [2021] NZDT 1343 (11 March 2021) [PDF, 178 KB]

    Contract / Agreement to purchase a puppy / Applicant paid $500.00 deposit to Respondent / Respondent withdrew offer for puppy / Respondent claimed deposit was non-refundable / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 for deposit and costs associated with travelling to visit the puppy and finding another / No breach of contract / Respondent cannot rely on contractual terms of a contract she has cancelled / Respondent was able to recover any losses by selling puppy to another person / Respondent must return deposit to Applicant / Other costs or losses not recoverable / Claim allowed in part / Respondent to pay Applicant $500.00.

  6. QN Ltd v SL [2020] NZDT 1337 (5 March 2020) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Contract / Quasi-contract / Applicant acted for Respondent seeking improved compensation from EQC for damage to Respondent’s property / Respondent obtained further compensation of $120,000 from EQC / Applicant claimed $3,200 as legal costs /Applicant claimed it was implied term of contract with Respondent that Respondent would pay legal costs / Held: Legal costs not implied term of contract between parties / Applicant does not have a contractual right to the $3,200 claimed based on express statements to Respondent that litigation costs would be met by Applicant / Tribunal examined whether it would be unjust for Respondent to retain benefit of compensation at Respondent’s expense / Applicant claimed legal costs were included in compensation but were unable to provide express explanation or breakdown of compensation from EQC showing costs included in compensation /  Held: Applicant not entitled to amount sought in absence of express explanation or breakdown from EQC regarding costs / Cla...

  7. L Family Trust Limited v KM [2021] NZDT 1319 (24 February 2021) [PDF, 199 KB]

    Cross-lease / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours in a cross-lease property made up of one building divided into two flats / Terms of the cross-lease require each unit to pay half the cost of repairs and maintenance of the building, includingthe roof / Applicant considers Respondent has not kept up responsibilities under terms of cross-lease / Applicant claims Respondent’s roof needs to be repaired and repainted, exterior walls of flat repainted to original colour and shared fence to be painted / Held: terms of cross-lease require roof to be repaired and repainted / Held: requirement of “high standard” in terms of cross-lease do not apply to fence, no obligation on Respondent to contribute to painting it / Respondent entitled to paint exterior walls of their flat / Respondent ordered to repair roof and arrange painting with Applicant / Respondent to also repaint small shared external wall area.

  8. NA v OI [2021] NZDT 1313 (24 February 2021) [PDF, 255 KB]

    Nuisance / Applicant and Respondent own adjoining properties / On three occasions trees on Respondent’s property fell and caused damage to Applicant’s property / Logs piled on Respondent’s property rolled and caused damage to a wall of Applicant’s house / Applicant claimed $3964.42 from Respondent / Held: trees were kept in a dangerous state, after two trees fell this state was known to Respondent and the potential for a further tree to fall was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent had no knowledge of work resulting in the logs being piled and cannot be said to have had any control them / Claim relating to falling trees allowed, respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,066.59 / Claim relating to rolling logs dismissed.

  9. EP v XN [2021] NZDT 1302 (17 February 2021) [PDF, 158 KB]

    Duty of care / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Dog Control Act 1996 / Respondent's dogs attacked and killed six of Applicant's sheep / Applicant claims value of the lost sheep and treatment costs associated with injuries / Held: as owner Respondent has a duty of care to ensure dogs are under proper control and do not roam / Respondent has breached this duty of care by not ensuring their dogs remained chained up when unattended / Successful claim.

  10. BD and NQ v R Co Ltd [2021] NZDT 1354 (12 February 2021) [PDF, 169 KB]

    Conveyancing / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Duty of reasonable care and skill / Applicant engaged Respondent to provide conveyancing services for a property purchase / Applicant claims losses related to delay in moving into the property due to advice of Respondent / Respondent counter claims for time spent on post settlement matters and Tribunal attendance / Held: advice to Applicant regarding vendor having 7 days to take care of issues with property amounts to a failure of reasonable care and skill / Advice regarding 7 day period was inaccurate / Respondent not settling before 4pm amounts to failure of reasonable care and skill leading to losses for Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $393.00 to Applicant

  11. NK v EI Ltd [2021] NZDT 1464 (10 February 2021) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took car to Respondent to have rust around windscreen of his vehicle repaired / Some months later Applicant was advised windscreen needed repairing again / Applicant claimed $1,787.20 for second rust repair costs as well as lost earnings / Whether rust repair was carried out with reasonable care and skill / Whether Applicant was entitled to remedies / Held: evidence indicated repair was carried out with reasonable care and skill / claim dismissed.

  12. QI v PH & DN [2021] NZDT 1300 (10 February 2021) [PDF, 227 KB]

    Property / cross lease / Fencing Act 1978 / fence between exclusive area and common area / entitlement to park in common area / enforcement of requirement not to park in the common area / claim for compensation / Held: entitled to have a fence as no term in the lease preventing this / respondents not entitled to park in the common area / Tribunal not able to make order preventing long term parking / claim for compensation dismissed as not supported by evidence

  13. KD v SS [2021] NZDT 1409 (28 January 2021) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant contacted his Respondent neighbour about building a fence between their properties / Notice included details about the fence and an indication that the Respondents would be liable for a contribution to the fencing costs of $945.56 / Respondent replied to Applicant that he thought the existing fence was adequate / Parties failed to reach an agreement / Applicant stated he was concerned his animals would escape on to the Respondent’s property / Applicant commenced work on fence / Fence was completed and the Applicant attempted to recover fence costs from the Respondent / Whether the respondent was liable for a contribution to the fence costs / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to claim $945.59 / Held: on the balance of probabilities, fence was not adequate / However, differences between the Applicant and the Respondent were not resolved when the Applicant chose to replace the fence / Fence did not require immediate work /  Respondent was no...

  14. E v T [2021] NZDT 1310 (28 January 2021) [PDF, 226 KB]

    Consumer / Applicant purchased a new build from Respondent's company with faulty central heating system / Company now removed from Register / Applicant claims $27,100.30 in repair and legal costs / Held: Applicant not able to seek redress from company as has been removed from Register by Respondent / Applicant can claim against Respondent personally / Claim is within Dispute Tribunal jurisdiction / Applicant was a consumer and law recognises imbalances between consumer and business in other areas of law / Applicant has legitimate breach of contract claim against company / Respondent had knowledge of failure when company removed from Register / Applicant entitled to claim repair costs / Breach of warranty / Breach of statutory guarantee / Legal costs largely not recoverable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,047.80.

  15. MD v O Ltd [2021] NZDT 1347 (27 January 2021) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sent a computer using a courier service / Respondent said the postal service was under a contract with another party / Following collection and before the item arrived at intended destination a redirection request was made / Computer never arrived at first destination or redirected address / Applicant unable to collect computer from depot due to Covid 19 restrictions /  Computer sent to redirected address but never arrived / Respondent said no ability to locate computer due to nature of contract with other party / Applicant claimed never given an option to pay for posting once the parcel was located at the depot or told there was anything irregular with tracking of the package / Applicant claimed $635.00 for costs of computer plus filing fee / No contract between parties and no liability at law from Respondent to Applicant for loss of computer / Applicant took a risk sending the parcel / Claim dismissed.

  16. D Ltd v QT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1468 (21 January 2021) [PDF, 234 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant's house damaged by fire / Negative asbestos test received / Respondent agreed to demolish house / Respondent ordered separate absestos test and commenced work before results returned / Asbestos test came back positive / Respondent invoiced Applicant for work with higher costs due to asbestos being found / Applicant claims not liable for additional costs because Respondent completed work before receiving results or asking for original test results / Applicant claims breach of Health & Safety at Work (Asbestos) Regulations 2016 and Approved Code of Practice: Management and Removal of Asbestos, November 2016 / Respondent claims Applicant misled them / Held: Applicant did not mislead Respondent about absestos test / All statements made were true / Held: even if statements were misleading, inducement not established / statute requires identification to be undertaken by competent person and Applicant not one / Outcome: claim allowed...

  17. JA v KQ & BT [2021] NZDT 1355 (20 January 2021) [PDF, 190 KB]

    Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant invested money in a terms deposit with a company where Respondents were directors / Company went into receivership then liquidation / Applicant claims employee’s of company engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Applicant claims directors should be respondible for the actions of their company and their employees under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act / Applicant did not have personal dealings with Respondents and claim is not caught under s 43 / No general liability on directors for actions or conduct of their company / Claim dismissed

  18. ET Ltd v District Council [2021] NZDT 1317 (20 January 2021) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Contract / breach of contract / Applicant had a licence to occupy a site for a cart / Applicant made enquiries to Respondent to move cart to a second site / Applicant was told by Respondent the business could move to the new site / Respondent paused the move of the business formally sought expressions of interest / Applicant did not submit expression of interest as felt site was already allocated to her business / licence to occupy site was issued to another person based on expression of interest / Applicant claimed $15,000 (now $30,000 from Respondent for loss of income / Respondent claimed no contract had been formed with Applicant / if a contract had been formed Respondent disputes amount of claim due to term of licensing period, no expression of interest by Applicant, and accuracy of financial forecast submitted by Applicant / Held: contract formed between Applicant and Respondent / Held: Respondent repudiated contract, Applicant entitled to cancel contract and seek relief / Claim ...

  19. NO Ltd v JL Ltd & SI [2021] NZDT 1342 (19 January 2021) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Damages / Second respondent responsible for vehicle accident that caused damage to Applicant’s property / Applicant claimed costs of $5,196.23 to repair the damage / Second Respondent claims a deduction should be made from the sum claimed to reflect betterment and a failure to mitigate costs / Held: appropriate to allow a deduction of 20% for betterment of the damaged property / Held: deduction of 20% towards costs regarding hours spent on repair and age of property for lack of documentation of actual costs / Claim allowed / Second respondent ordered to pay $4,156.98 to Applicant.

  20. MG and WJ New Zealand Ltd v DI Ltd [2021] NZDT 1358 (15 January 2021) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Duty of reasonable care and skill / Respondent installed heat pump system at home of Applicant / External heat pump unit fell and caused damage to unit and Applicant’s house / Applicant contacted Respondent to inspect unit but Respondent failed to attend property / Applicant involved insurance company and the heat pump unit was replaced / Applicant’s insurance company claims costs for replacement of unit and Applicant’s excess / Applicant claims further losses relating to guarantee of acceptable qualify of the condensation pump / Held: Respondent failure to securely attach heat pump was a failure of the guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Respondent liable to pay cost of total losses as a result of the external heat pump unit falling / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurance company $5,661.64 / Held: no further loss to Applicant for any failure of guarantee of acceptable quality for the condensation pump / Claim dismissed

  21. DQ Ltd v MS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1314 (21 December 2020) [PDF, 188 KB]

    Consumer law / s 13(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1986 / s 28 of the Consumer Information Standard (Used Vehicle) Regulations 2008 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Respondent provided Applicant with a Consumer Information Notice at point of sale / notice incorrectly stated that the vehicle had not been imported as a damaged vehicle / Applicant claims $29,980.00 for cost of vehicle and sign writing / Held: Respondent made false representations regarding history of the vehicle / Respondent did not comply with Consumer Information Standard regulations / No defence under s 44(5) of the Fair Trading Act as Respondent knew, or should have known, that it did not comply with the consumer information standard / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29,980.00 / Applicant ordered to make vehicle available for collection by Respondent.

  22. KS v OT Ltd [2020] NZDT 1406 (17 December 2020) [PDF, 129 KB]

    Contract / Applicant rented storage unit from Respondent / Storage unit burgled / Applicant’s personal items were stolen / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable to pay $1,229.50 for value of missing items / Applicant claimed Respondent made a false or misleading statement in relation to its security system / Held: Respondent has no contractual liability for replacement of lost items / Goods stored at owner’s risk in contract terms and conditions / Respondent did not make a false or misleading statement resulting in Applicant’s loss / Claim dismissed.