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. AEN and AEO v ZVJ Ltd, ZVI and ZVH [2013] NZDT 336 (23 January 2013) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants’ property adjoins property owned by First Respondent / Applicants issued a Fencing Notice which was delivered to the registered office of First Respondent but addressed to Second Respondent / Second Respondent received the notice but chose not to respond / Applicants proceeded to build the fence as they did not receive a cross notice / Applicants claimed for a half share of the cost of the fence / Held: First and Second Respondents are separate legal entities but notice fulfilled the purpose of service / mistake was immaterial / Applicants issued valid notice and as First Respondent did not issue a cross notice, it was deemed to have accepted the proposals and liable to pay the half share / s 11(3) Fencing Act 1978 / issue of fencing being over-height dealt with by Applicants / fence boundary line in accordance with s 22 Fencing Act 1978 / claim allowed, First Respondent is ordered to pay Applicants $1,600.00.

  2. ACQ v ZXN and ZXM Ltd [2013] NZDT 134 (20 January 2013) [PDF, 52 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant (on far left lane) and First Respondent (between far left and middle lanes) were travelling on motorway in peak hour traffic / Respondent indicated right and began to move right but moved back left after seeing Applicant’s motorcycle / however, Applicant in the meantime committed to evasive action which resulted in the motorcycle being dropped to the ground / motorcycle to be written off / Applicant claimed for the pre-accident value of the motorcycle less amount obtained for the wreck / Held: there was no negligence on the part of First Respondent / not proven that Respondent left his lane / no breach of rule 2.3(2)(b) Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / claim dismissed.

  3. AGE and AGH v ZVR Ltd [2012] NZDT 393 (23 November 2012) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Negligence / vicarious liability / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicants claim Respondent’s road sweeper showered stones and gravel onto their car, causing damage / Applicants claim for the cost of damage due to Respondent’s negligence / issue of whether Respondent was negligent in the operation of the road sweeper / Held: Respondent was not negligent / Respondent operated the road sweeper in accordance with industry standards / Respondent’s duty of care to other road users was not breached / Applicants’ claim is dismissed.

  4. ACE v ZXZ [2012] NZDT 136 (19 December 2012) [PDF, 69 KB]

    Contract / quantum meruit / faulty medicines / Respondent faxed 900 New Zealand pharmacies including Applicant instructing recall of a suspected faulty medication / same recall between another pharmacy and Respondent decided in District Court / Ian Johnson Pharmacy Ltd v GlaxoSmithKline NZ Ltd DC Manukau, CIV-2010-092-1947, 26 September 2011 / Applicant claimed for its time and costs spent effecting the recall / Held: District Court decision acted as a precedent for this claim / Applicant entitled to payment for services in contract or alternatively on quantum meruit basis / fax sent to Applicant constituted a contract and services requested were over and above those normally provided / Applicant was entitled to reasonable payment for its services / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $253.00.

  5. AAP v ZZM [2012] NZDT 38 (15 November 2012) [PDF, 53 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Overseas parties / Applicant is an overseas company based in Australia / Respondent is a New Zealand company based in Christchurch with Australian clients / agreement between parties that Respondent would service some of the Applicant’s Australian-based clients / no written terms to the agreement / Respondent paid the Applicant in Australian dollars / Applicant sought to recover a number of outstanding invoices / the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 and Disputes Tribunals Rules 1989 entitled any person to commence proceedings in the Tribunal in the prescribed form / no issue of enforcement when Applicant resides overseas / District Court has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim by an overseas applicant / according to principles of conflict of laws, claim should be heard in accordance with Australian law / Disputes Tribunal not able to apply Australian law / claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction. 

  6. AEG v ZVP Ltd [2012] NZDT 339 (23 October 2012) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Bailment / Applicant left his trailer with the Respondent for a warrant of fitness / trailer left by the Respondent outside overnight and not in an area monitored by security camera / trailer stolen / held that a relationship of bailment existed / held that Respondent had been negligent in its care of the trailer while it was in its possession and failed to take reasonable care / Respondent liable for the full cost of the trailer.

  7. AAH v ZZT [2012] NZDT 39 (15 October 2012) [PDF, 51 KB]

    Jurisdiction / tort / pure economic loss / Applicant manufactured an additive to grapes / Respondent was contracted by a winemakers association to prepare a “spray schedule” for circulation to the members of the association / Respondent was of the opinion that the Applicant’s product should be on the schedule and accompanied by a statement saying that it may affect the flavour of the wine / Applicant argued that it has suffered loss as a result of the publication of this view / Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims in tort is limited to claims in tort in respect of any damage or injury to property / property refers to tangible property such as chattels and does not encompass alleged harm to pure economic interests, such as loss of a sale / claim outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / claim struck out.

  8. AEI and ZVN [2012] NZDT 273 (10 October 2012) [PDF, 46 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant argued that Respondent was negligent to the terms of a resource consent for work on adjacent property and claimed to recover his costs / Held: claim is not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / parties had no contract / Applicant claimed that Respondent’s negligence caused financial loss / outside the scope of s 10(1) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 as not destruction, loss, damage or injury to, or recovery of, property / claim dismissed

  9. ADE v ZWV [2012] NZDT 186 (3 October 2012) [PDF, 47 KB]

    Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / Respondent a former employee of Applicant / Applicant overpaid Respondent $380.98 in his final pay / Respondent claims he can retain the overpayment pursuant to the Wages Protection Act 1983 / Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fee from the Respondent / issue as to jurisdiction / Tribunal has jurisdiction under quasi-contract to hear claim / Employment Relations Authority does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of overpayment to an employee after employment terminated / claim not founded in contract and Respondent has not breached a contract / quasi-contract / person liable to make restitution when unduly enriched / Respondent received money he was not entitled to through Applicant’s error / no legal reason justifying non-repayment / WPA does not apply as Applicant not seeking to deduct overpayment from future wages / Respondent not entitled to the money and has been unduly enriched by Applicant’s error / unjust for Respondent to reta...

  10. AAJ and AAK v ZZR [2012] NZDT 2 (28 September 2012) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent recommended investment plan to Applicants who signed a Management Agreement / Agreement involved Applicants mortgaging their home, borrowing money, receiving money, fees and investment of the balance with an investment company / Applicants gave loan to KL from the investment company who ultimately defaulted on the loan / Applicants claimed that Respondent’s conduct in advising them of investment plan was misleading / Held: investment scheme booklet failed to state the dependence upon re-investment of annual tax refunds / Respondent’s conduct in returning tax refunds to Applicants was misleading / investment plan was not suitable for Applicants / AMP Finance NZ Ltd v Heaven (1997) 8 TCLR 144 / s 11 Fair Trading Act 1986 / claim not statute-barred / s 43(5) Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent, as director, should be personally liable / Gloken Holdings Limited v The CDE Company Limited (HC Hamilton CP28/95, 24 June 1997) / claim allowed, Respondent ordere...

  11. ABJ Ltd & ABK v ZYT Ltd [2012] NZDT 66 (21 August 2012) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / lack of consideration / Director of Respondent offered to provide free accounting services to Applicants for two years during sale negotiations of a gym business / offer was confirmed in email after which Applicants arranged to transfer files from previous accountant / dispute arose over retention of an amount of purchase price from sale / Respondent advised Second Applicant that agreement to provide accounting services was cancelled / Applicants claimed two years’ accounting fees / Tribunal finds that there was agreement between parties to provide accounting services free for two years / this was not part of the Sale and Purchase Agreement / this was not legally binding as there was no consideration thus not enforceable / Applicants not contractually entitled to any compensation / offer was in the nature of a gratuitous offer / claim dismissed.

  12. AAC v ZZX [2012] NZDT 33 (17 August 2012) [PDF, 64 KB]

    Tort / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant’s dog was being walked without leash and was attacked by the Respondent’s dog / Respondent was charged under s 57(2) of the Dog Control Act, discharged without conviction and ordered to pay reparations of $1,500 / Applicant sought further $2,500 for the cost of further treatment to dog / owner of dog liable in damages for damage done by the dog without it being necessary to prove the dog had a tendency to bite, or that damage due to negligence of owner: s 63, DCA / defence under s 63 if the damage was also caused by the person claiming / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 also applicable / s 11(3) of Disputes Tribunals Act provides that no claim in respect of any damage or injury to any property where an offender has been sentenced under s 32 of the Sentencing Act 2002; however this does not apply in a claim to recover damages in excess of the amount ordered under that Act / held that the reparations under the Sentencing Act 2002 did not discharge ...

  13. AAL and AAM v ZZQ in his capacity as Trustee of BG Trust [2012] NZDT 3 (7 August 2012) [PDF, 49 KB]

    Tort / negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicants’ vehicle driven by First Applicant collided with a bull owned by BG Trust on a state highway / Applicants claimed for the damage to their car / Held: BG trust’s actions were not negligent as they met the standard expected of a reasonably prudent farmer raising bulls / BG trust had taken a number of steps to minimise the likelihood of damage arising / altercation with mob of bulls was unexpected and unavoidable / BG trust could not have done anything further to prevent the escape / claim dismissed.

  14. AEQ v ZVF & ZVE [2012] NZDT 268 (16 July 2012) [PDF, 48 KB]

    Contract / Second Respondent’s brother on her behalf made successfully bid on motor vehicle on Trade Me using First Respondent’s account / Second Respondent could not afford to pay for purchase / Applicant re-advertised vehicle and sold at a lesser price / Applicant claimed the difference in price / Tribunal finds First Respondent is not liable as the contract is between Applicant and Second Respondent as bid was made on her behalf / Second Respondent in breach of contract as she failed to pay purchase price / Applicant entitled to recover difference in price and expenses incurred as damages / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $700.00.

  15. AAV and AAW v ZZG [2012] NZDT 10 (28 June 2012) [PDF, 62 KB]

    Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s cattlebeast escaped on the road / collided with Applicant’s car causing extensive damage / car written off / issues are whether respondent failed to take reasonable care if third party had left gate open and whether storage costs while Applicant’s wreck was being sold are established / held that Respondent failed to take reasonable care to ensure stock did not stray on to road – either by leaving gate open himself or allowing third party to do so / storage period of 52 days not foreseeable and is therefore reduced to 14 days / sum awarded reduced accordingly by $218.50 / Respondent ordered to pay $6,901.26 / Respondent to pay the money to Applicant’s insurer.

  16. AFN v ZUI [2012] NZDT 187 (8 June 2012) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Nuisance / Applicant’s drain was damaged by what she believed was the Respondent’s rhododendron tree, and so she engaged a plumber to repair the drain in 2006 / in 2011, more damage in a different spot emerged / Held: Applicant failed to establish on balance of probabilities that the Respondent’s rhododendron tree created a nuisance and damaged her drains / instead, it could have been caused by tree roots in the nearby Council reserve / however, the Applicant established that the 2011 damage was caused by the Respondent’s rhododendron tree roots, that the Respondent did know or ought to have known about the nuisance in 2011, and that the damage caused by the tree roots was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for only 70 per cent of the cost of repairing drain as the drain was old and required work regardless of the damage / Respondent to pay Applicant $653.79.

  17. AEM v ZVK [2012] NZDT 316 (1 June 2012) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to acceptable quality / Applicant claimed outstanding invoice from Respondent for sale of goods / Respondent counterclaimed for different goods supplied earlier and alleged these were deficient once installed / Applicant denied these were deficient and claimed he was not responsible for installation deficiencies / Held: disputed goods were supplied as ordered, accepted on delivery and installed by a third party contractor / Applicant complied with his side of contract and was not responsible for installation / Applicant entitled to payment for outstanding invoice / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay applicant $7,039.83.

  18. AAE v ZZV [2012] NZDT 32 (18 May 2012) [PDF, 66 KB]

    Tort / Towing of vehicle / Applicant parked at a plaza and had dinner there / parking only for customers / remained parked after the plaza closed / returned to car and it had been towed by the Respondent (a towing company) / no signage at entrance and no sign in front or behind the row of parking spaces in which the Applicant parked / Applicant seeks refund of release fee / law of trespass to goods / clamping a person’s car is an act of trespass to that person’s property unless it can be shown that the owner has consent to, or willingly assumed, the risk of the car being clamped / same logic applies to towing / distress damage feasant only applies where a person or object trespasses on to land and causes damage / held that the Respondent committed a trespass against goods when it towed the Applicant / notices were insufficient for purposes of warning the Applicant he may be towed / Respondent not entitled to rely on distress damage feasant as there was no damage / Respondent ordered to...

  19. ABU v ZYI [2012] NZDT 83 (8 May 2012) [PDF, 82 KB]

    Tort / Trespass to land / Applicant and Respondent neighbours / Applicant claims that the Respondent threw dog faeces on her roof / evidence from Applicant’s builder that he’d found dog faeces on the Applicant’s roof / to succeed in a claim of trespass to land, necessary to show that the trespass arose from the actions of a specific person, not just the property / although the faeces most likely did originate from the Respondent’s property, Applicant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that it was the Respondent, specifically, who threw the dog faeces onto the roof / claim dismissed

  20. AEL Ltd v ZVL [2012] NZDT 310 (17 April 2012) [PDF, 43 KB]

    Contract / Applicant claims $506.93 in respect of plumbing services rendered by Respondent and additional administrative costs / Respondent claims its insurer should make the relevant payment / Respondent did not deny existence of contract or that services were rendered / issue of whether the Respondent’s insurer should pay is an issue between the Respondent and its insurer / Applicant is entitled to payment of services but not additional charges as lack of evidence that Respondent accepted the additional charges / Tribunal filing fee only recoverable in exceptional circumstances which do not apply / Respondent to pay Applicant $312.57.

  21. AEF Ltd v ZVQ [2012] NZDT 325 (16 April 2012) [PDF, 49 KB]

    Contract / Money owing on a debt / Respondent given notice in writing and via email / question of the Respondent’s liability for collection costs and interest after notice / Terms of Hire were clear as to interest on debts / terms did not specify whether the interest accrued on existing overdue amounts / interest not charged prior to notice as this would have been to apply interest retrospectively / a retrospective application of the clause would amount to a harsh exercise of its enforcement powers for the purpose of s 19(e) of the Disputes Tribunals Act / Respondent to pay debt collection fees and a reduced amount of interest from that claimed.

  22. AGF Ltd v ZVQ Council [2012] NZDT 453 (20 March 2012) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Resource Management Act 1991 / Applicant claimed costs against the respondent for the moving of a water supply valve to comply with a resource consent condition / Applicant claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim under the Fair Trading Act 1986 / Held: the parties’ relationship was created by the Respondent’s statutory authority under the Resource Management Act / Applicant’s claim is outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction / claim is to be struck out.

  23. ABB Ltd v ZZC [2012] NZDT 31 (24 January 2012) [PDF, 57 KB]

    Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / copyright infringement / Respondent re-published certain photographs on its website taken from Applicant’s website without Applicant’s permission / therefore, Applicant argues that Respondent obtained undue advantage and thereby Applicant entitled to be compensated in quasi-contract / Tribunal finds copyright falls within definition of ‘intellectual property’ under s 11 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with intellectual property under section 11(5)(c)(iv) / claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction / claim dismissed.

  24. AN v ZM Ltd [2012] NZDT 581 (20 January 2012) [PDF, 16 KB]

    Tort / trespass / distress damage feasant / Applicant parked her car on a site for a small errand elsewhere and found her car clamped by Respondent and was only released after payment of $250 charge / Applicant claimed for refund of the amount charged / Held: wheel clamp was not justified in the circumstances / not been provided with any evidence relating to authority of wheel clamping / even assuming authority existed, signs containing conditions were insufficient and obscured and not reasonably sighted by Applicant / doubt whether charge of $250 reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $250.