You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year - 2016 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

236 items matching your search terms

  1. BH v YH Ltd [2015] NZDT 757 (24 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bike online from Respondent which developed fault / stand-off between parties as to who should pay for freight to return bike to Respondent / Applicant eventually sent the bike to Respondent which discovered and repaired minor wiring fault / Applicant claimed $1,790.96 for refund of the bike, courier costs and compensation / Held: Applicant did not give Respondent opportunity to examine the bike and to repair and therefore did not have right to reject the bike / bike failed to meet guarantee of acceptable quality and Applicant is entitled to freight cost as it is cost reasonably foreseeable / Respondent liable for cost of freighting bike back to Applicant / Applicant’s claims for other consequential losses dismissed / supplier cannot contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to freight bike back to Applicant and pay $90.

  2. DB v WY Ltd [2015] NZDT 829 (22 April 2015) [PDF, 72 KB]

    Jurisdiction / bankruptcy / ss 76 and 101, Insolvency Act 2006 / Applicant granted rehearing of claim / Respondent lodged counterclaim / Applicant adjudicated bankrupt / Held: Applicant’s claim cannot proceed in Tribunal / on adjudication of bankruptcy, all property and powers over property for bankrupt’s benefit vest in Official Assignee / Applicant must contact Official Assignee about claim / Respondent’s counterclaim cannot proceed / all proceedings to recover debt halt when party adjudicated bankrupt / Respondent must apply to High Court to continue claim / claim struck out

  3. BO v YL [2015] NZDT 773 (13 April 2015) [PDF, 16 KB]

    Contract / insurance / Applicant claimed $2,527.70 from his insurer, Respondent, for repairs to the deck at his home and maintains damage was caused by a sudden event and is covered by his house insurance policy / Held: can exclude the possibility of product failure and of a wide scale failure of the product generally / evidence suggests only other alternative is sudden damage to the deck causing damage to the waterproof membrane / fact Applicant cannot recall a specific event does not, of itself, exclude likelihood a specific event causing damage occurred / Applicant established on balance of probabilities that there had been a sudden event causing damage to the waterproofing and is therefore entitled to be covered for the damage / claim allowed, First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,127.70.

  4. DA v WZ & WZW Ltd [2015] 761 (22 March 2015) [PDF, 83 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failure to satisfy contract / Respondent is director of company listed as second Respondent / Applicant delivered motorbike to Respondent for repairs / Respondent stalled repairs for long period of time / Applicant requested return of motorbike / Respondent declined / Applicant lodged claim / Respondent returned partially assembled motorbike / Respondent did not charge for services / Applicant claims for various losses and costs incurred while motorbike was in Respondent’s possession for 20 months / Held: Applicant at all times was dealing with second Respondent as a full legal entity company / no basis for personal liability against Respondent / second Respondent failed to provide service with reasonable care and skill or complete contract in reasonable time / failure to charge does not absolve liability under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entitled to have motorbike serviced by another supplier and receive additional damages / claim...

  5. CL v XP 2015 NZDT 743 (27 February 2015) [PDF, 74 KB]

     Negligence / contributory negligence / car collision / Applicant and Respondent collided as Respondent entered motorway / Applicant’s insurer claimed against Respondent for insured loss / Held: Applicant had right-of-way when Respondent collided with his vehicle / Respondent failed to enter motorway from on-ramp with due care / damage to Applicant’s vehicle and lengths taken by Applicant to locate independent witness added weight to Applicant’s version of events / no evidence of contributory negligence / costs claimed were actual, reasonable and consistent with nature of impact / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,656.61 

  6. BN v YM [2015] NZDT 770 (23 February 2015) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Mistakes Act 1977 / Applicant placed four live bets online on an international football match but stated she made a mistake by betting on first half goal scores / Applicant claimed $3,300 in refund / Held: do not accept Applicant made a unilateral mistake known to Respondent / with online betting Respondent does not have opportunity to engage with the other party to their contract prior to betting so cannot understand bettor’s intentions / Applicant had properly been informed of terms and conditions of online and live betting on website / rules necessary in fairness to all punters so they can rely on integrity of the betting system / claim dismissed.

  7. BM Ltd v YN [2015] NZDT 769 (23 February 2015) [PDF, 71 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant was contracted to provide plumbing services to Respondent’s bathroom on behalf of Respondent’s insurance company / Respondent decided to alter vanity area which was beyond the scope of remedial work being completed / Applicant claimed $2,376.07 for work completed / Held: Respondent liable to pay the amounts claimed / insufficient evidence to establish amount claimed for the work was not reasonable / collection, service and filing fee costs can be claimed only where they are allowed for in contract / Applicant’s claim that Respondent signed job authorisation form not made out / Respondent’s position caused considerable delay in payment / appropriate for 27 months’ interest at 5% per annum to be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,727.98.

  8. BF v YU [2015] NZDT 742 (13 February 2015) [PDF, 65 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a wall-hung basin from Respondent after speaking to one of the salespeople / when the basin was removed from its box it was not able to be wall-hung / Applicant was told 20% would be deducted from the refund per Respondent’s terms and conditions / Applicant claimed the balance / Held: Respondent has not complied with guarantee as to fitness for purpose / Applicant made it known expressly that she wanted a wall-hung basin / Respondent is not entitled to make any deduction from refund amount / not lawful to contract out of Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and terms and conditions can only apply where there has been no breach of statutory guarantee / Applicant entitled to receive full refund / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $29.48.

  9. CQ v XK 2015 NZDT 715 (10 February 2015) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Applicant claimed for pre-accident valuation of car prior to sale, uneconomic to repair / Respondent counterclaimed for estimated repair costs to car she drove, not owned by her / Held: Respondent breached duty to act with reasonable care and due consideration for others / solely negligent for not giving way / drivers must take care not to drive in a manner that causes damage to another vehicle / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 4.2 / costs claimed established, reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,020.35 / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed

  10. BZ Ltd v YA [2014] NZDT 719 (12 December 2014) [PDF, 58 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out painting at a rental property / there was conversation about work to be done but nothing recorded in writing / parties have quite different accounts about what the extent of work was for the agreed price / Held: price charged by Applicant is reasonable for the amount of work done / even if Respondent thought other areas were included the price provided by Applicant was only for work they say it was and work that was actually done / Respondent liable to pay invoiced amount / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,945.

  11. DP v VK Ltd [2014] NZDT 753 (28 November 2014) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Contract / Agency / farm manager for Respondent employed applicant to rock pick paddocks / Applicant gave invoice for $9,948.08 / farm manager took first invoice to farm owner for approval and employed Applicant for further work / Applicant provided second invoice for $4,083.65 / Applicant claims for both invoices, totalling $14,031.17 / Held: farm manager had no apparent authority to employ a contractor / farm owner ratified farm manager’s authority retrospectively by agreeing to first invoice and saying Applicant could do further three hour’s work / if agent purports to act on behalf of principal without actual authority, absence of assent can be given retrospectively by principal through ratification / Applicant and farm manager say second work was not limited / second lot of work found on balance of probabilities to be limited to three hours / claim allowed in part, Respondent to pay first invoice and three hours for second invoice, totalling $10,862.33

  12. ES v UH Ltd [2017] NZDT 641 (31 October 2014) [PDF, 82 KB]

    Cancellation of contract / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to provide wedding decorations for her wedding / Applicant paid deposit and balance of contract price / Applicant cancelled contract four days before wedding / Applicant claimed refund of total money paid less the deposit / Held: Applicant not entitled to cancel contract / no termination clause in contract / no breach of contract by Respondent / Applicant not induced to enter contract by a misrepresentation / Respondent had already begun planning and preparatory work but travel and labour costs not yet incurred / Respondent entitled to damages less the costs not incurred

  13. DM v VN Trustees Ltd [2014] 723 ( 31 October 2014) [PDF, 146 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill / Applicant is an architect and was engaged by Respondents to complete two jobs on a piece of land, including drawing plans and applying for resource and building consents / second job had no written contract / Applicant claims for two unpaid invoices, totalling $6,182.40 / Respondent counter-claims that Applicant’s services not performed with reasonable care and skill, resulting in additional building costs and time delays / Respondents claim $50,000 which was reduced to $15,000 to fall within Tribunal jurisdiction / Held: the two sets of building consent plans were two separate contracts / first job was completed and paid for before second job was requested and at no time was a complaint made about first job / second job took same form as first despite having no written contract / amount charged by Applicant is reasonable for the nature of the work undertaken / insufficient evidence to prove that Applicant’s plans an...

  14. AV v ZE [2014] NZDT 668 (8 October 2014) [PDF, 23 KB]

    Contract / Applicant enrolled in an immersive 34 week Maori language course but missed 23 consecutive days / Respondent terminated Applicant’s study / Applicant claimed $3,300 being the portion of her fees and the course she missed / Held: s 235 of Education Act 1989 does not apply as Applicant did not terminate the course, her contract was cancelled by Respondent / section misconstrued by Respondent / Respondent made it clear that attendance was important but do not accept that by signing the enrolment form Applicant agreed the course could be cancelled and her fees forfeited / do not accept attendance was a term of the contract / reasonable consequence of Applicant failing to attend all classes is she not graduate / Respondent wrongly cancelled contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,300.

  15. AS Ltd v ZH Ltd [2014] NZDT 659 (26 September 2014) [PDF, 20 KB]

    Contract / Applicant’s manager signed a “three year agreement” with Respondent and a service agreement form recording a new address when Applicant moved premises / Applicant claimed it only intended to enter into a month by month agreement, was misled and document was misleading / Held: by signing the document Applicant entered into a binding contract, not proven there was any misleading conduct and second contract cancelled / Applicant’s manager did not read the document, even reading the front page would have told her the agreement was for a three year term and she was the manager of the store not a junior staff member / Applicant only wished to record change of address / claim dismissed.

  16. AY Ltd v ZB Ltd [2014] NZDT 676 (26 September 2014) [PDF, 16 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to provide a wooden building kitset with a 63mm profile for a construction project undertaken for a commercial client / Applicant contended the kitset provided was not “fit for purpose” / Applicant claimed $14,875.89 for losses suffered / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply as the kitset was to be re-supplied in trade by Applicant to its commercial client / find the kitset was supplied as per the written contract between parties / it was to a satisfactory standard that met Building Code requirements / no breach of contract by Respondent / claim dismissed.

  17. AT Ltd v ZG [2014] NZDT 662 (15 September 2014) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent entered into a sole agency agreement with Applicant and authorised up to $2,500 to be spent on marketing / proposed auction was cancelled, conditional sale fell through and Respondent attempted to cancel the contract / Applicant claimed $2,500 for marketing expenses invoiced / Held: additional marketing costs distinct and not recoverable as there was no sale / pro-rata deduction of costs claimed warranted as all marketing ceased after Respondent attempted to cancel contract / no basis for auctioneer’s fee and pre-auction meeting as service was not provided / minor issues with marketing breach of guarantee to provide services with reasonable care and skill / claim allowed (in part), Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,103.23.

  18. DF v VU [2014] NZDT 677 (8 September 2014) [PDF, 20 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased a truck from Respondent / Applicant claimed $15,000 for cost of repairs to the truck, COF inspection fee, insurance and registration / Held: fact that Respondent told Applicant a much higher mileage not misleading but a false statement / case paints picture of Applicant as someone who was inexperienced and ill-prepared to operate a truck as owner-driver / Respondent had no particular obligation to direct Applicant to the appropriate pre-purchase inspection place or to explain road user charges / insufficient evidence damage existed at the time truck was sold / Applicant was not induced into entering the contract from false statement about truck’s mileage / claim dismissed.

  19. CT v XH 2014 NZDT 736 (2 September 2014) [PDF, 120 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / actual cost of repairs to Applicant’s car $22,566.21 / Applicant claimed maximum amount claimable in Tribunal / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to give way / duty of care on all drivers to drive to the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Tribunal unable to find on the evidence that Applicant contributed to collision or extent of damage by driving too fast for conditions / undisputed costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $15,000

  20. AK Ltd v ZP [2014] NZDT 611 (11 August 2014) [PDF, 27 KB]

    Credit contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Respondent took out a loan from Applicant of $1,000 but fell into arrears after about three months and could not be contacted / Applicant claimed $2,288.20 / Held: Respondent was in breach of contract and under the consumer credit agreement Applicant may ask for repayment of loan with all outstanding amounts / PPSR fee, commission on debt and estimated amount of interest deducted from amount claimed as they should not have been charged / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,690.95.

  21. AI v ZR Ltd [2014] NZDT 610 (7 August 2014) [PDF, 19 KB]

    Land Transport Act 1998 / Police seized and impounded car driven by Applicant’s son and three days later Applicant registered the car in her own name / Respondent stored the car for over 28 days then it was onsold and crushed / Applicant claimed Respondent unlawfully sold the car / Held: Respondent did not act unlawfully in selling the car / Section 97(2A) of Land Transport Act 1998 defines “owner” as the registered person in respect of the vehicle at the time it is impounded and Respondent entitled to rely on information provided by Police / Respondent not legally obliged to wait a further 10 days under s 98(4) / claim dismissed.

  22. AU v ZF District Council [2014] NZDT 665 (5 August 2014) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / in 1974 the borough installed a sewer line which was not connected to the property / in 2000 the property was sold to Applicant’s family trust / it was agreed by parties that the trust overpaid rates / Applicant claimed $6,500 for overpaid rates / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction / jurisdiction in claim founded on quasi-contract limited by s 11(7) / considered in Auckland City Council v Henderson District Court which held that the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with claims in respect of money due under enactments / argument in ECNZ v Waikato Regional Council may be advanced in the courts but not the Tribunal / claim struck out.

  23. AJ v ZQ Ltd [2014] NZDT 628 (18 July 2014) [PDF, 26 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicant was referred to an eye specialist to be tested and it was noted that he did have ocular hypertension / Applicant after joining Respondent returned to the optometrist for new glasses and further testing but was declined prior-approval on the basis that the interocular hypertension was a pre-existing condition and excluded from Applicant’s policy / Applicant claimed $1,535 being the costs related to testing and treatment / Held: based on the definition of “pre-existing condition” in Applicant’s contract of insurance, Respondent is entitled to exclude costs of treatment of interocular hypertension from cover / Applicant ought to have been aware that the specialist regarded him as having ocular hypertension / word “condition” broader than “disease” and encompasses something like ocular hypertension even if it is merely a statistical classification / claim dismissed.

  24. AC v ZX Ltd and ZXZ Ltd [2014] NZDT 593 (14 July 2014) [PDF, 27 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant discovered his hot water cylinder was leaking and engaged plumber to fix it / as cylinder was under warranty it was sent back to Second Respondent who denied the problem was covered by its warranty / Applicant claimed the cost of replacing cylinder / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 guarantees that the cylinder be of acceptable quality, durable and fit for purpose / cylinder failed due to a cause of the manufacturer Second Respondent / failure of substantial character not capable of remedy / damages replacement cost of cylinder and reasonable / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,145.

  25. AH v ZS Ltd [2014] NZDT 625 (11 July 2014) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a second-hand windscreen from Respondent and engaged a third party to install it who discovered a crack / Applicant claimed for refund of the screen plus the installer’s fee and filing fee / Held: insufficient evidence to establish that the crack was already existing when it was sold to Applicant / impossible to tell when the crack occurred / guarantee of durability in Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 cannot be stretched to mean item made of glass will not crack or break / claim dismissed.