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

2944 items matching your search terms

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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…
  4. C Ltd & OT v DB [2025] NZDT 245 (8 July 2025) [PDF, 191 KB]

    Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 (DCA) / Respondent’s dog came into Applicant’s yard and was seen with Applicant’s dog / Applicant concerned his dog might have mated with Respondent’s dog / On vet’s advice gave abortion drugs to his dog / Applicant claimed vet costs, interests and filing fee / Held: under DCA Respondent responsible for damages caused by her dog / Reasonable for Applicant to administer drugs before he knew whether dog was pregnant or not / Fault partially attributed to Respondent as negligent in allowing dog to wander and partially with Applicant as did not take reasonable precaution to ensure male dogs could not get to his dog / Respondent liable for half of vet fees, not liable for interest or filing fee / Claim allowed in part. 
  9. OC v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 409 (13 May 2024) [PDF, 207 KB]

    Contract / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant used diesel emissions fluid in her petrol car / Applicant claims there was insufficient signage at Respondent’s service station / Applicant claims $1,060 to repair her vehicle / Held: Services should be conducted with reasonable skill and care / No person in trade shall engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive / Respondent had taken reasonable steps to alert drivers about exhaust fluid / Claim dismissed.
  17. KG v TM [2020] NZDT 1416 (12 August 2020) [PDF, 213 KB]

    Negligence / Assessment of primary liability and contributory negligence / Assessment of reasonable losses suffered / Applicant and respondent were drivers involved in a minor motor vehicle accident / Collision occurred when Respondent passed the Applicant’s vehicle on the left, and Applicant was completing a left-hand turn / Applicant claims repair costs of $4,380.37 / Respondent counter-claims repair costs of $2995.75 / Held: no contributory negligence on Applicant’s behalf, Respondent in breach of s 2.8 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, and 100% liable for the collision / Detailed invoices and photographs provided by Applicant represented the actual and reasonable losses sustained / Applicant’s claim allowed, Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $4,380.37 to Applicant’s insurer
  18. UB v KL [2020] NZDT 1372 (13 November 2020) [PDF, 170 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a semi-self-contained studio on Respondent’s property / After moving in Applicant found stove not working and electrical wires cut, the television did not work and the external door did not close or lock / Respondent declined to fix the problems offering Applicant to use her kitchen and to install SKY / Applicant moved out after two nights notifying Respondent in writing / Respondent refused to return bond and advance rent / Applicant claims refund of $500 bond and $400 being two weeks advance rent payment / Held: offer of 1-bedroom studio with kitchen and television facilities was misrepresentation / Applicant entitled under Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 to seek damages / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $907.44
  19. PG Ltd v KH Ltd & JC Ltd [2014] NZDT 1346 (31 October 2014) [PDF, 217 KB]

    Insurance claim / Applicant had insurance with Second Respondent through the Second Respondent who is an insurance broker / Applicant’s insurance cover changed in 2012 limiting claims to incidents within 5 kms of Applicant’s business / Applicant made claim in January 2013 for incident 85 kms from business and was paid by Second Respondent / Applicant made claim in September 2013 for incident 150 kms from business and claim was denied / Applicant claimed payment for loss from Second Respondent in the sum of $11,114.81 / Second respondent seeks to recover $9,477.29 paid in error to the Applicant / Held: Second respondent not required to pay Applicant because it paid out on previous claim / Held: Respondent did not take reasonable care and skill to renew Applicant’s insurance / Respondent in breach of obligations to Applicant / Held: Applicant likely to have found other adequate cover which would have paid out September 2013 claim / Claim allowed / Tribunal reduced amount of Applicant’s c…