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. BD v AN [2020] NZDT 1333 (22 June 2020) [PDF, 368 KB]

    Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a car collision / Applicant was hit from behind by Respondent / Collision caused $3,934.06 of damage to Applicant’s car and $3,139.20 of damage to Respondent’s car / Both parties seek cost of repairs / Applicant claimed the Respondent was at fault because he was following behind / Respondent claimed Applicant drove in an unsafe manner that created a situation on the road / Inference that Respondent as following driver responsible for failing to see Applicant, failing to keep a proper distance or failure to stop short / Respondent raised defence per r 1.8 of the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 that he was responding to a situation on the road that was not of his making and was avoiding another crash / Held: unable to find Applicant was at fault / Applicant’s claim allowed / Respondent’s claim dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,934.06

  2. NN v MF [2020] NZDT 1332 (18 June 2020) [PDF, 203 KB]

    Contract / Terms of contract / Respondent signed up online to complete a course of weekly business coaching with the Applicant / Respondent advised she wished to terminate service after entering online contract with Applicant / Applicant claims $600.00 on the basis his terms and conditions require a 6-week (30 business day) notice period / Respondent claims she did not receive adequate notice of the terms and conditions requiring this notice period / Held: Applicant’s terms normally include a notice period / Evidential onus on Applicant to prove terms of contract understood and accepted by Respondent / Tribunal unable to make a finding that notice period incorprated within contract entered by Respondent / Claim dismissed

  3. CJ v HQ Ltd [2020] NZDT 1367 (16 June 2020) [PDF, 108 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased cookware from First Respondent relying on error made by salesman / Applicant returned cookware via Second Respondent / Cookware lost by Second Respondent / Applicant sought order that she was not liable for $4,7555 cookware/ Whether Applicant had right of return / Whether Second Respondent was liable for missing cookware / Held: Applicant had right of return / Second Respondent lost the cookware / Wholesale price not disclosed / Once contract for sale of cookware was cancelled the cookware was only worth replacement value / Merits and justice of case required one direct payment from Second Respondent to First Respondent / Second Respondent ordered to pay nominal loss of $304 to First Respondent at maximum tracked parcel liability.

  4. EJ v HL & BL [2020] NZDT 1330 (10 June 2020) [PDF, 192 KB]

    The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a horsefloat from the Respondents for $5,300.00 / Applicant subsequently discovered horsefloat has safety and maintenance issues / Applicant claims compensation of $4,999.00 / Respondent claims no knowledge of safety issues as an engineer advised horsefloat was sound and a mechanic warranted it prior to sale / Held: the float was misrepresented in the ad / Held: defects were present at time of sale / Held: Applicant’s right is only a damages, not a refund as the float is classed as “goods” / Held: the repair cost plus consequential losses represent the direct and foreseeable losses arising from representations in the ad / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,139.89

  5. NI v CT [2020] NZDT 1382 (14 May 2020) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicant collided with a herd of cows when driving on a rural road / Second Respondent acknowledged that a farm gate was damaged / Applicant claimed he suffered loss because his vehicle carried finance over and above market value of vehicle / Whether Second Respondent acted with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Whether Applicant’s loss was foreseeable / Held: Second Respondent did not act with a standard of care expected of a reasonable farmer / Applicant suffered a loss caused by a breach by Second Respondent / Applicant entitled to damages to put him back to the position prior to collision / Ordinary person would not expect to pay for finance above the value of the vehicle / Applicant not proved that he suffered a loss in terms of finance / Applicant’s insurance considered losses/ If insurance had not covered losses than Second Respondent would be liable / Claim dismissed.

  6. XD v MU [2020] NZDT 1311 (14 May 2020) [PDF, 189 KB]

    Contract for service / Respondent agreed to erect a boundary fence / Applicant paid $2,300.00 being half the quoted sum / Respondent erected fence in unsatisfactory manner / No written contract but agreement not followed / Fence built by Respondent rather than company that produced the quote / Palings put on Applicant’s side without consent / Fence not completed / Held: Applicant entitled to a partial refund of $950.96 for his contribution to the fence.

  7. MD v KM Ltd [2020] NZDT 1328 (30 January 2020) [PDF, 242 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a pony from Respondent for her daughter / Pony had a substantial bucking habit which was not able to be resolved / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price and costs associated with transport and upkeep of pony / Respondent claimed that the Applicant waited too long after purchase to raise concerns, was advised of pony’s tendency to buck, had caused an escalation of issue by delaying remedial work, had not viewed the horse or explained purpose pony was sought / Held: pony was misdescribed in advertisement / Pony was not of acceptable quality per Consumer Guarantees Act 1993  / Applicant entitled to reject the pony and get a refund / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $5,000.00 / Respondent to arrange collection of pony / Ownership of the pony re-vested in Respondent

  8. MW v EF Ltd [2019] NZDT 1304 (4 December 2019) [PDF, 248 KB]

    Contract / Respondent invited Applicant to join an advisory board for their company / No formal contract / Applicant claims Respondent agreed to pay for advisory board work and additional consulting work, and at the same daily rate / Held: lack of agreed terms, genuine misunderstanding about intentions / Consulting work outside of role of advisory board member and there was clear instruction to carry it out / Claim allowed for advisory board work and quantum meruit claim awarded for consulting work / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,408.64.

  9. W v D [2019] NZDT 1362 (29 November 2019) [PDF, 220 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased property from respondent / Power cables laid by contractor of respondent were actually on neighbours property / Applicant claims the cost to purchase the piece of land from neighbour, boundary consultant fees, legal costs, land transfer and LINZ fees / Held: no breach of sale and purchase agreement / Electrical cabling not laid on the applicant’s property / No remedy available to applicant / Claim dismissed

  10. KD v NI Ltd [2019] NZDT 1361 (29 November 2019) [PDF, 262 KB]

    Contract / Building Act 2004 / Pooling of water at rear of property / Water not draining away from retaining wall effectively / Applicant claims damages to remedy drainage problem / Held: No jurisdiction to hear claim against second respondent / Absence of connection between draining provision and cesspits represents a breach of warranties contained in the Building Act 2004 / First respondent to pay damages to applicant / Claim against first respondent allowed / Claim against second respondent struck out

  11. NR v HT [2019] NZDT 1335 (6 November 2019) [PDF, 222 KB]

    Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a motorsailer boat being sold by Third Respondent on behalf of Second Respondents / Respondent prepared a report on the condition of the boat for the Second Respondents which was also viewed by the Applicant / After purchase the Applicant discovered damage to the timbers on the boat and was advised the deteriorated steering made the boat unseaworthy / Applicant considered the boat was misrepresented and was neither fit for purpose nor of acceptable quality / Applicant claimed compensation of $15,000.00 and contribution towards repair costs / Respondents claimed that the report identified visible faults and was prepared for the Second Respondents not Applicant / Respondents also claimed Applicant signed a contract putting risk of faults on him and the boat was not subject to any warranties / Held: contents of report did not create an actionable misrepresentation under s 35 of the C...

  12. EFT v SQ [2019] NZDT 1357 (25 October 2019) [PDF, 195 KB]

    Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s bull was out of its paddock causing collision that resulted in the total loss of the applicant’s ute / Applicant claimed the value of the ute plus the Tribunal filing fee / Held: evidence relating to reasons the fencing may have been compromised at the time is insufficient to prove negligence on respondent’s part / Respondent has no liability for applicant’s reasonable losses and the claim is dismissed

  13. TG v H Ltd [2019] NZDT 1338 (25 October 2019) [PDF, 304 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Alleged breach of “live foal guarantee” in breeding contract / Contract was ambiguous / Held: “Live foal free return” referred to attempt to get a live foal, not a guarantee of one / Required to provide free returns into the second season / Held: Broodmare not as described / Mare not proved to be pregnant, therefore not of acceptable quality / Applicant awarded $1,805.36 as contribution to the costs associated with purchase.

  14. HY v RB & YR [2019] NZDT 1217 (7 October 2019) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Contract / applicant purchased property from respondent & discovered road was being constructed on its boundary / applicant not notified of works or consent given by vendors / property used for grazing horses & AirBnB business / applicant claimed she would not have purchased property or would have negotiated a lower price if notified of works / Held: vendors had a duty under vendor warranty to advise applicant of consent / property directly affected by works due to noise & activity / applicant suffered loss & entitled to compensation / no direct financial loss to business or value of property but indirect loss of what was contracted for or loss of the bargain / failure to notify took away applicant’s right to negotiate on different terms / other losses included distress & disappointment from reduced outlook from property, loss of peace of surroundings & physical inconvenience & nuisance from dust, traffic & noise / claim allowed / vendors ordered to pay applicant $15,000 in damages

  15. M v U [2019] NZDT 1309 (21 August 2019) [PDF, 216 KB]

    Civil / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant removed and replaced boundary fence between their property and Respondent's property / Applicant removed Respondent's flax / Applicant claims half the cost of fence plus cost of removing flax / Held: fence was inadequate before it was replaced / Applicant did not follow notice procedures to entitle them to claim a half share of costs / Applicant entitled to contribution of half of cost of half the fence on basis immediate work was required / Respondent entitled to set off for lost flax / $140 awarded to Applicant for fence, $140 awarded to Respondent for flax / Full set off / Claim dismissed.

  16. MD v BL [2019] NZDT 1376 (1 July 2019) [PDF, 193 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant hired Respondent as builder to renovate bathroom / Renovations delayed longer than Applicant expected / Applicant ended contract and hired new builder at Respondent’s suggestion / New builder had to remediate issues with Respondent’s work / Applicant sought compensation for remedial transition work undertaken by new builder / Rehearing of that application with Respondent in attendance / Held: Defects in work done by Respondent / Applicant awarded $4,243.50 in compensation minus $1,170.00 owed to Respondent / Applicant had already received $4,545.00 / Applicant to repay Respondent $1,471.50 from original hearing.

  17. HX v RC [2019] NZDT 1215 (17 May 2019) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Contract / applicant purchased house from respondent which had ongoing repayments due to Council / applicant claimed repayments not disclosed in negotiations or agreement for sale & purchase in breach of vendor warranties / obligation to make repayments included in LIM report / Held: no obligation on real estate agent to bring obligation to attention of applicant / reasonable expectation that reading LIM would clearly convey information / no breach of vendor warranties because no arrears at settlement & repayments disclosed in LIM / claim dismissed

  18. FR v TI [2019] NZDT 1145 (12 April 2019) [PDF, 80 KB]

    Contract for services / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted to test and maintain fire and sprinkler systems at apartments owned by Respondent to a standard required by local Council / service contract provided for monthly inspections in addition to callouts / callouts attracted extra fees / two false alarms triggered by insect larvae and webs inside the detectors / Applicant claiming for payment of the two false alarm callouts / Respondent argues Applicant failed contractual duties to maintain alarm system / Held: Applicant failed to provide its services with reasonable care and in manner fit for purpose / Applicant knew that insects were an issue with false alarms but did not advise the Respondent of this or how to avoid this issue / further, response time to second false alarm excessive / claim dismissed

  19. DT v BJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1353 (21 January 2019) [PDF, 251 KB]

    Contract / Insurance policy / Applicant’s car was stolen /  Respondent denied claim stating Applicant has not made a “prima facie” case that car was stolen and onus on Applicant to prove valid claim exists / Respondent claims Applicant did not provide information relating to stolen car or information provided was fraudulent / Applicant claims she acted in accordance with policy / Held: Applicant established a prima facie claim / Applicant complied with conditions of the claim / Tribunal not satisfied Respondent established Applicant provided incorrect or incomplete information supporting her claim / Tribunal not satisfied Respondent established Applicant provided fraudulent information in support of claim / Held: no evidence Applicant committed fraud / Respondent not entitled to decline claim / Tribunal satisfied sum insured $19,800 set by Respondent / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,800.

  20. GM v SNS Ltd [2018] NZDT 1116 (26 September 2018) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent repaired leak in Applicant’s hot water cylinder / Applicant paid original invoice in full / hot water cylinder leaking again one month later / Applicant seeks declaration of liability to be made / Held: no evidence first repair not carried out with reasonable care and skill / second leak in distinct area not connected with first leak’s repair / no evidence workmanship on first repair caused second leak / Respondent not responsible for leak / fee for second repair not unreasonable / claim dismissed / Applicant to pay second invoice of $290.95