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

342 items matching your search terms

  1. ADW Ltd v ZWC Ltd [2010] NZDT 243 (25 November 2010) [PDF, 56 KB]

    Contract / declaration of non-liability / Applicant was fitting a premises with an outdoor awning / Respondent gave estimate for how much work would cost / total amount the Respondent invoiced exceeded estimates / Applicant claims it is not liable for the Respondent’s final invoice of $618.75 (incl GST) / contacts for work done imply a term that the price will be reasonable / where price is discussed the law follows the agreement between parties / where estimate is provided the courts will generally allow cost to vary by plus or minus 20 per cent / Respondent’s invoices were nearly twice its estimate / held that the Respondent charged more than it was entitled to pursuant to the agreement between the parties / Applicant not liable to pay the $618.75 (incl GST).

  2. ACB v ZYC and ZYB [2010] NZDT 77 (9 November 2010) [PDF, 79 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant claims boundary fence needs replacing / Respondents disagree, state fence only needs repairing / Applicant claims Respondents liable for half the cost of replacing the fence under the Act / Respondents counterclaim that fence only needs repairs / relevant law: ss 9, 22 and 24(a) of Fencing Act 1978 / adjoining occupiers of land not divided by adequate fence liable to contribute in equal proportions to cost of work on fence / Applicant’s reports show fence not adequate and repairs would not make it adequate / cheapest quote for replacing fence is $5,068.74 / Respondent liable under s 9 to contribute half the cost of replacing fence / given position of Applicant’s driveway, fence is to be built as close as practicable to the boundary line / Applicant’s claim allowed, Respondents to pay Applicant $2,534.37 within 21 days / Respondents’ counter-claim dismissed.

  3. ADZ v ZVZ [2010] NZDT 245 (3 November 2010) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Respondent while driving had diabetic hypoglycaemic episode, lost control of vehicle and collided with Applicant’s parked vehicle / Applicants claimed costs of repairing the damage / Held: medical evidence indicated that the diabetic hypoglycaemic episode was readily foreseeable / Respondent had condition for over 30 years, skipped dinner and undertook vigorous exercise / Respondent should have reasonably appreciated risk / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $13,182.09.

  4. ADX and ADY v ZWB and ZWA [2010] NZDT 244 (23 September 2010) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Contract / Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 / Second Respondent is a minor and agreed to sell horse to Applicants / parties agreed that First Respondent acted as Second Respondent’s agent and had authority to sell horse / after Applicant paid agreed sum, Second Respondent changed his mind about selling horse / Applicants claimed for enforcement of contract / Held: Second Respondent’s reason for wanting to cancel contract was his deep attachment to horse / ordinarily this is irrelevant but Tribunal is to take wider perspective under s 6(3) Minors’ Contracts Act 1969 / having regard to subject matter and nature of contract, it was not appropriate to enforce contract although it was fair and reasonable / Applicants entitled to compensation under s 7(1) Minors’ Contract Act 1969 for inconvenience, expense and emotional impact / claim dismissed, Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,000.00 compensation.

  5. AEA v ZVU Ltd [2010] NZDT 251 (3 September 2010) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantees as to acceptable quality and fitness for purpose / Applicant purchased a pair of basketball shoes made by a major shoe manufacturer / claimed the pull tab on the shoe had agitated his ankle and caused bleeding / sought refund on the basis that the shoes were not reasonably fit for the purpose for which the supplier represented they would be fit under s 8(1)(b) / Applicant made his own shoe selection and did not rely on the Respondent’s staff’s expertise / Respondent produced evidence showing this and a similar style of shoe had been sold in New Zealand without complaint / evidence from podiatrist suggesting Applicant was not wearing correct socks for his foot size / held that the Applicant’s injury was likely to be a case of needing to “wear in the shoes” and blisters are not uncommon with new shoes / claim dismissed.

  6. AAT and AAU as Trustees of LM Trust v ZZH [2010] NZDT 17 (24 August 2010) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Contract / lease / implied terms / Respondent leased farm property from Applicants (trustees of LM Trust) / under Lease, the lessee was not required to leave any silage / however after lease was signed there was oral agreement between parties that Respondent could use part of a silage pit as long as it was replaced at end of the lease / Respondent emptied silage pit but did not replace it on termination of lease / Applicants claimed for the value of silage / Held: it could not be found that oral agreement existed given the conflict of recollections and lack of documentation / insufficient evidence to find there was meeting of the minds on the matter / requirement to replace could not be implied as it was inconsistent with express terms of the Lease and could also not be implied by custom or usage / claim dismissed.

  7. AAX and AAY as Trustees of AP Trust v ZZF Ltd [2010] NZDT 18 (13 August 2010) [PDF, 87 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicants purchased insurance policy for their property underwritten by Respondent / two claims were made under the policy (2006 and 2009) / for 2006 claim, Respondent only paid out on one item claimed as it took the view that an excess applied to each item and only one item was recoverable / for 2009 claim, Respondent deducted a landlord excess rather than an owner occupied excess / Applicants claimed for the items not paid out in the claims / Held: policy enabled Applicants to aggregate their claims entitling Respondent to only deduct one excess / policy could be read as enabling aggregation of related claims to avoid multiple excesses / damage from Applicant’s tenancy to be considered as a “series” of events from one original source / Distillers Co Bio-Chemicals (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ajax Insurance Co Ltd (1974) 130 CLR 1 / Pacific Dunlop Ltd v Swinbank (1999) 10 ANZ Insurance Cases 61-439 / distinguished QBE Insurance Ltd v MGM Plumbing Pty Limited [2003] ...

  8. AAR and AAS v ZZI Ltd [2010] NZDT 14 (21 July 2010) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 and non est factum / Applicants entered into Agreement for Sale and Purchase of property from Respondent and paid deposit / however, settlement never took place as Applicants thought property included a garage and library but Agreement only related to the garage / Applicants claimed the return of their deposit / Held: there was insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent misled Applicants / parties were at cross-purposes, only Applicants were mistaken about the subject matter of Agreement thus no mutual mistake / relief precluded by s 6(2)(a) Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 / Applicants did not exercise reasonable care to establish contents of Agreement, therefore could not rely on plea of non est factum / claim dismissed.

  9. AAB v ZZY [2010] NZDT 20 (21 July 2010) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Contractual Mistakes Act 1974 / Applicant entered into a contract to purchase Respondent’s takeaway business / Applicant paid deposit upon signature, with settlement to take place one month later / realised deep fryer and fan were not part of the sale shortly before settlement / sought to cancel the agreement and return deposit / claim for $1,000 for deposit / Respondent counterclaimed for $9,000, seeking completion of the purchase / held that the Applicant was unable to establish that they agreement, construed objectively, obliged the Respondent to supply all furniture and fittings / Applicant failed to establish that the Respondent had ever represented that he owned the deep fryer, fan or other chattels, so claim under Contractual Remedies Act failed / no unilateral or mutual mistake for purposes of s 6 of the Contractual Mistakes Act / not just for the Respondent to enforce the agreement and require balance to be paid when parties had negot...

  10. 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...

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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...

  15. 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

  16. 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...