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. AAQ Ltd v ZZJ, ZZK and ZZL [2013] NZDT 13 (16 April 2010) [PDF, 84 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantees as to acceptable quality and fitness for purpose / Applicant purchased diesel from First Respondent’s petrol station / almost immediately after purchasing the diesel, the Applicant’s Landcruiser’s engine failed due to a breakdown in the vehicle’s fuel injection system /  repairs cost over $12,250 / held that CGA applied as diesel fell within the definition of a “good” under the CGA, and it was sold in trade by the First Respondent / also a claim against the Second Respondent, the New Zealand company the distributed the fuel to petrol stations as “manufacturer” / held that the engine failure was caused by fuel contaminated by water / First Respondent had failed to maintain diesel tank resulting in higher-than-normal water levels in the diesel / First Respondent liable under the CGA / Second Respondent not liable under the CGA as there was not evidence to suggest the fuel was contaminated when it was delivered to the First Respondent / 30 per cen...

  2. AAF and AAG v ZZU [2010] NZDT 45 (26 February 2010) [PDF, 71 KB]

    Jurisdiction / personal injury / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicants claimed damages against Respondent for negligent health care services including damages for emotional harm, anxiety and stress / matter was investigated by Health and Disability Commissioner / Respondent refunded cost of treatment / Held: Applicant’s claim is founded on tort of negligence causing personal injury and emotional harm / personal injury claims exclusively covered by Injury Prevention Rehabilitation and Compensation Insurance Act 2001 / therefore, claim outside jurisdiction of Tribunal / claim struck out.

  3. AGP v ZTZ Ltd [2009] NZDT 554 (23 November 2009) [PDF, 69 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant purchased new motor vehicle from Respondent / automatic transmission failed / Applicant claimed for the cost of repair as vehicle was not of “acceptable quality” under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Held: Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal has jurisdiction to deal with claims under the CGA against motor vehicle traders / claim more properly determined there with the assistance of a specialist assessor / claim transferred to Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal.

  4. ADC v ZWY [2009] NZDT 199 (31 July 2009) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (CRA) / Applicant engaged Respondent to sew garments / Applicant notified Respondent that she would be stopping payments because she was dissatisfied with the workmanship and the garments were not of the required standard / Respondent claims for payment of invoice and Applicant claims for the cost of the materials used for the sewing of the garments / Held: implied term of the contract that sewing would be done to an acceptable standard / essential term / Applicant entitled to cancel the contract in accordance with s 7 of the CRA / s 9 of CRA allows an order for damages when contract is cancelled by any party / no compensation payable to Respondent for her performance of the contract as the garments have no value / Applicant’s counterclaim successful, Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent to pay Applicant $223.44.

  5. AAD v ZZW LTD [2009] NZDT 9 (9 June 2009) [PDF, 70 KB]

    Contract / Sharemilkers Agreements Act 1937 / Applicant was appointed by the Respondent and a third party to act as a conciliator in sharemilking dispute / both parties agreed to pay half the costs of the conciliation / Respondent had not paid its account and considered the work done by the Applicant to be in breach of her contract as a conciliator / held that the Applicant failed to carry out her role as conciliator with reasonable skill and care, and in accordance with the Sharemilking Agreement / conciliator was obliged to immediately convene a hearing between parties; to assist parties to reconcile their views on the dispute to reach an amicable settlement, and to provide independent and impartial assistance / was not relevant that the Applicant was not a member of a professional body of mediators, or that she failed to complete the conciliation in the timeframe envisaged under the Sharemilking Agreement / held that the failings in the process adopted by the Applicant significantly...