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

691 items matching your search terms

  1. BD & NL v CM Ltd t-a HD [2021] NZDT 1669 (14 October 2021) [PDF, 277 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants purchased cooker from Respondent / Applicants’ had issues with cooker, no replacement parts available and have replaced cooker / Applicants’ claim damages of $9,097.87 from Respondent for costs of refund and replacement of cooker / Is cooker not of acceptable quality and/or not fit for purpose? / Is Respondent Manufacturer of Cooker; if so, did Respondent faile to take reasonable action to ensure facilities for repair of cooker and supply parts were available? / Did Respondent engage in conduct misleading or deceptive? / If so, are Applicants entitled to remedy and is remedy claimed proved and reasonable? / Held: cooker not of acceptable quality or reasonably fit for purpose / Evidence shows issue with cooker and no evidence that Applicants’ did not care appropriately for the cooker / Held: Respondent manufacturer of cooker under s 12 of CGA / Held: Respondent in capacity of manufacturer of cooker failed to comply with s 12 of CGA / Appli...

  2. BC v TG [2021] NZDT 1636 (13 October 2021) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in vehicle collision / Respondent intended to turn right into driveway as he did so Applicant began to overtake and vehicles collided / Applicant stated Respondent did not indicate / Applicant claimed $250.00 for his insurance excess for car repairs / Whether Respondent was responsible for collision / If so, whether costs were reasonable / Held: not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Parties have differing recollections of events / Not proven on balance of probabilities that Respondent failed to indicate / Not reasonable for Respondent to have kept constant watch on car behind him whilst making turn / Not proven that Respondent was responsible for collision / Claim dismissed.

  3. QM v QU Ltd [2021] NZDT 1673 (11 October 2021) [PDF, 117 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased phone from Respondent / Applicant had issue playing certain game on phone / Manufacturer stated issue with touch panel to be adjusted in firmware update / Applicant claims refund of cost of phone and delivery charge / Whether phone of acceptable quality / If not, whether Applicant is entitled to a refund of purchase price and/or cost of delivery / Held: phone not acceptable quality / Phone sold as gaming phone but not fit for purpose of playing popular game / Held: Applicant entitled to reject goods, cancel contract and receive a refund / Applicant also entitled to recover delivery cost / Respondent ordered to pay $1,711.08 to Applicant / Applicant to return phone to Respondent at own cost / Claim allowed.

  4. LC v DH Ltd & QH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1667 (11 October 2021) [PDF, 115 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed retro-fit double glazing of Applicant’s home / Applicant experienced various problems with installation which culminated in meeting between the parties / Agreed that Second Respondent would remediate problems with original work and complete additional work / Applicant claimed $11,356.08 from Respondent for refund of quote and payment for original work / Applicant also claimed $3,797.00 from Second Respondent for price of additional work and further claims from both Respondents of $567.77 / Were services provided by Respondent done with reasonable care and skill / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Respondent / Were services provided by Second Respondent reasonably fit for purpose / If not, did Applicant or agent contribute to solution installed / If not, was Applicant entitled to refund from Second Respondent / Was Applicant entitled to costs / If so, who should pay the costs / Held: Respondent did not provide services with...

  5. P Ltd v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1643 (8 October 2021) [PDF, 145 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted with Respondent to supply and fit tyres, rims and lift kit on Respondent’s vehicle / Applicant claims $4,375.00 for balance of unpaid invoice and collection costs / Respondent counter-claims $5,000.00 for illegal work and recovery cost of original rims and tyres / What were terms of contract and did Respondent breach by failure to pay or did Applicant breach by failure to return original equipment / Was work carried out with reasonable care and skill and was outcome fit for purpose / What remedy, if any, available / Held: parties agreed Respondent would pay $9,890.00 and agreement was payment on delivery / Nothing in agreement about collection costs / Agreement included Plaintiff retaining original equipment / Held: no breach of standard of reasonable fitness for purpose or failure to exercise reasonable care and skill / Held: remedy for breach is to place affected party in position would have been in if contract performed / Claim allowed, counter-claim ...

  6. BQ v XB & TB [2021] NZDT 1637 (7 October 2021) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Nuisance / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant wanted Respondents to pay for repairs to their driveway / Applicant claimed damage was caused by tree roots on Respondents’ neighbouring property / Applicant sought $29,00.00 for repairs / Whether there was a nuisance or there was a defence that the Applicant came to the nuisance / Whether the roots have caused damage or the deformations were inevitable consequence of the way it was constructed / Whether the value of the damage should be a repair costs, as opposed to a change in value / Whether the Applicant had suffered loss / Held: driveway appeared to have damage in the form of corrugations / Evidence suggested damage caused by tree roots / Found to be a nuisance and no defence that the Applicant had come to it / Applicant entitled to receive payment forrepair work to driveway / Respondents can only be responsible for restoring surface to its original state, not better / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $13,800.00 / Claim granted.

  7. SJ & NY v XT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1644 (6 October 2021) [PDF, 206 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent relocated water meter on Applicants rental property, a leak developed / Respondent agreed to fix leak and provide leak allowance for lost water / Applicants reported further leak, Respondent carried out repairs / Respondent provided further leak allowances and partially paid for water use invoices and charged Applicants for remaining cost / Applicants claim amount charged for estimated water usage excessive / Applicants claim $5,000 for declaration of non-liability on outstanding invoice of $1,056.80 plus damages for distress and time spent resolving matter / Held: Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $289.80 / Respondent overestimated usage / Insufficient evidence of quantifiable loss to award damages / Claim allowed

  8. JU Ltd v U Ltd [2021] NZDT 1633 (6 October 2021) [PDF, 205 KB]

    Insurance / Applicant owned rental property insured by Respondent / Insurance policy included accidental and malicious damage by tenants / When tenants moved out Applicant discovered damage to many areas of property / Applicant made insurance claim, accepted by Respondent / Respondent applied multiple excesses on the basis that damage was result of multiple events / Applicant argued damage should be treated as a single event, only one excess should be applied / Applicant claimed sum of $4,031,31 for cost of repairing damage, less the sum of one excess / Whether damage should be treated as a single event or multiple events under the policy / Held: damage was varied, found to have been caused by multiple events / Respondent entitled to charge multiple excesses / Respondent charged excesses on a room by room basis / Respondent’s calculations accepted / Respondent ordered to pay the Applicant $2,111.79 / Claim granted in part.

  9. DN v TQ [2021] NZDT 1632 (4 October 2021) [PDF, 213 KB]

    Negligence /  Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a vehicle collision / Both parties accepted that they did not see the other car until impact / Applicant brought a claim of $2,622.00 against Respondent / Whether Respondent caused the collision / If so, did Applicant contribute to the collision  / If so, what was the remedy / Held: Respondent was responsible (at least) in part for the collision / Respondent had an express duty to make sure the road was clear / Respondent did not see the Applicant pull out until it was too late / Applicant had a duty to make sure the road was clear before pulling out onto the road / Taken into account that the Applicant did not see the Respondent’s car until she heard the screech of brakes / Respondent contributed to the collision / Sum that Respondent is ordered to pay reduced by a third to reflect Applicant’s contribution / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,748.00 / Claim allowed.

  10. SA v TD & I Ltd [2021] NZDT 1646 (4 October 2021) [PDF, 139 KB]

    Land Transport (Road User) Rules / Car collision / Applicant claimed costs to repair vehicle /  Whether Respondent caused the collision / Whether Applicant contributed to the collision / Whether Respondent's employer vicariously liable / Held: Respondent caused the collision / Respondent drove in 50km/h zone at around 80km/h / Should not have attempted to pass if he could not do so safely / Applicant contributed to collision by speeding up when Respondent began to pass / Respondent has 65% liability and Applicant 35% / Respondent's employer vicariously liable as Respondent was driving to carry out work at a job site / Respondent and Respondent's employer to pay 65% of the claimed $4,732.25 which is $3,075.96 / Claim granted.

  11. KC v UD [2021] NZDT 1556 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 158 KB]

    Contract / Agreement to purchase caravan / Respondent paid deposit of $3000.00 / Respondent pulled out of deal before full purchase price paid / Applicant sought order from the Tribunal that he was not liable to repay the deposit / Held: contract was condictional on Respondent having finance approced / Finance not approved / Sale of caravan did not become unconditional / Nothing in writing to say deposit was non-refundable / No loss suffered by Applicant / Applicant not entitled to retain deposit / Claim dismissed, Applicant to pay Respondent $3000.00 deposit.

  12. BI v OX [2021] NZDT 1543 (17 September 2021) [PDF, 325 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Induced by misrepresentation to enter in contract / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Applicant asked before the purchase of the car of overheating issue / Respondent advised no issues of overheating / Car overheated / Applicant claims Respondent misrepresented car / Applicant claims damages / Held: Respondent did misrepresent car / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,869.75 in damages / Claim upheld

  13. US Ltd v NH [2021] NZDT 1545 (16 September 2021) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to supply and install steel roof / Respondent paid 50% deposit followed by later 25% payment totalling $8,000.00 / Applicant installed incorrect roofing material /  Applicant contracted scaffolders who damaged Respondent’s carport roof / Applicant claims $2,600.00 from Respondent for unpaid balance / Respondent counter-claims $8,000.00 for failure to install correct roofing material / Held: Applicant to refund Respondent $8,000.00 / Roofing not completed to adequate standard /  Applicant failed to adequately remedy issue / Applicant’s claim dismissed

  14. KC & LQ v UT & LT [2021] NZDT 1551 (9 September 2021) [PDF, 137 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants and Respondents own neighbouring properties / Applicants claimed fence between properties not adequate and served Respondents with a notice under the Fencing Act (the Act) asking Respondents to replace fence and pay cost / Respondents served cross notice under the Act stating fence was adequate and did not need replacing / Respondents stated if it did they should only be liable for 50 percent of cost of replacement / Whether the existing fence adequate in terms of the Act / If not, what were reasonable costs for replacement / Whether Respondents damaged the fence and were liable to pay full replacement cost / Held: fence not adequate in terms of the Act / reasonable costs to replace fence are $7,495.00 / condition of fence cannot said to have been caused by Respondents / per s 9 of the Act, each party liable for 50 percent of cost of replacement / Respondent ordered to pay $3,747.50 to Applicant / claim allowed

  15. NU v KD Ltd & QJ Ltd & GE Ltd [2021] NZDT 1550 (9 September 2021) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee of acceptable quality / Rejection of goods / Damages / Applicant purchased car from Respondent in January 2019 / Mechanical breakdown insurance was taken out in relation to the car with the Second Respondent / In March 2020 the car’s engine was replaced by the Third Respondent / Applicant states replacement engine has failed and claims refund of purchase price and repair costs / Held: Applicant not entitled to reject car and receive refund from Respondent / Lost right to reject goods as not done within reasonable time per s 20 CGA / Held: Applicant entitled to damages of $1844.12 from Respondent / Car not of acceptable quality per s 18 CGA / Claim allowed in part / Claim against Second and Third Respondents dismissed

  16. N Ltd v K Ltd [2021] NZDT 1559 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Fair Trading Act 1987 / Applicant purchased 14 seater van from Respondent / Upon delivery discovered van only certified to carry 13 people / Respondent seeking $10,000 for misrepresentation and misleading and deceptive conduct / Held: misrepresentation not found / Seats and certification correctly advertised / Misleading conduct found / Van only certified for 12 adults in a fare-paying capacity / Both parties aware that van was to be used for fare-paying passengers / Respondent to pay applicant $2,190.00 / claim allowed

  17. UI v DW Ltd [2021] NZDT 1528 (8 September 2021) [PDF, 245 KB]

    Contract / Veterinarian services / Applicant presented dog to Second Respondent at the First Respondent’s vet clinic for treatment / Dog was seriously ill and its condition deteriorated / Applicant took dog to alternative veterinarian for treatment / Agreement made that Applicant would pay reduced amount to First Respondent / First Respondent later sent another invoice for $671.00 to Applicant / Applicant sought compensation of $9,357.98 for alternative veterinarian bill and other costs / Whether the Second Respondent was personally liable under the contract for treatment of the dog / Whether the treatment of the dog was carried out with reasonable care and skill / What loss had the Applicant suffered / Held: contract for care and treatment of the dog was with the First Respondent, not the Second Respondent personally / Evidence suggested that treatment of the dog was not carried out with reasonable care and skill, particularly treatment provided by the Second Respondent / Applicant sh...

  18. UN v DE Ltd [2021] NZDT 1546 (2 September 2021) [PDF, 211 KB]

    Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Guarantee / Reasonable care and skill / Applicant entered a building contract with Respondent / Respondent hired subcontractor to pour coloured concrete driveway and patio for Applicant / Applicant noticed cracks in patio surface and claims refund of cost of patio from Respondent / Whether Respondent failed to use reasonable care and skill, whether Respondent has failed to meet prescribed Building Code Standard within 6-8 hours after initial hardening and, if no cause proven, can inference be drawn from the fact that crack occurred / Held: no proven failure of competency or reasonable care and skill on part of Respondent / Held: timing of cuts meets the Building Code’s expectations, no breach of s 362I(1)(a)(i) / Held: standard allowing tolerance for cracks in concrete sufficient explanation as to why inference cannot be drawn that crack would not have occurred without negligence / Claim dismissed.

  19. OX v QT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1671 (16 August 2021) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Contract / Tort / Trespass / Applicant instructed his son to park in a private carpark / Respondent issued Applicant with a letter to pay $95 for the breach and $75 late payment / Applicant advised Respondent he had not received the first breach letter but paid the $95 / Applicant later received notice from a debt collection agency to pay $288.75 / Applicant sought declaration he was not liable to pay any further monies to the Respondent and claimed reimbursement of the filing fee / Whether the Applicant trespassed onto land by parking without authorisation / Whether the Applicant was a party to a contract by parking where he did / Whether the Applicant was entitled to a declaration that he was not liable to pay the breach fees / Held: $95 paid by Applicant for trespassing onto the Respondent’s land was more than sufficient compensation / No contract between the parties / No foundation for the Respondent’s notice seeking late payment or debt collectors’ fees / Applicant was entitled to...

  20. KN v ID Inc [2021] NZDT 1527 (13 August 2021) [PDF, 216 KB]

    Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant’s car was parked near a hockey stadium / Ball from the turf damaged the applicant’s car / Applicant claimed $1475.00 for damage to his car / Whether the respondents owed a duty of care / What duty was breached / If so, whether the breach caused damage and was foreseeable / What was the reasonable costs of repairing the damage / Held: duty of care for the occupier of the turf to take reasonable care to prevent harm resulting from their activities on the turf/ Applicant was a hockey player and was accustomed to how the turf was used / Applicant failed to discharge onus of proof that there had been a breach of duty of care by the respondents / No breach of duty of care found / claim dismissed.

  21. TC v F Ltd LM [2021] NZDT 1590 (12 August 2021) [PDF, 184 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant purchased used vehicle from Respondent / Vehicle represented as having current Warrant of Fitness (WOF) / Noticed extensive rust on the floor and other places / Alleged misrepresentation by Respondent / Respondent claimed no knowledge of the rust / Respondent claimed they are not responsible for alleged failures of business who issued WOF / Held: vehicle not misrepresented as rust was not "visible rust" / Held: Respondent not responsible for invalid WOF / No evidence that Respondent knew or ought to have known the issuing authority for the WOF was unreliable / Claim dismissed

  22. LD v LT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1579 (12 August 2021) [PDF, 174 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Kitchen cabinetry / Applicant claimed $7,976.00 in connection to supply and installation of kitchen cabinetry / Applicant claimed a worker for respondent damaged dining table during installation, which would cost $782 to fix / Applicant also claimed the cabinetry supplied breached the warranties as it did not meet the description and it was not reasonably free of defects / Whether it was more likely than not that the respondent’s worker damaged applicant’s table / Whether cabinetry fell short of guarantees under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: on the balance of probabilities, more likely than not the table was damaged by respondent’s worker / Respondent must therefore pay cost of getting table fixed / not accepted there was any significant defect in the product that meant it will not be acceptable to an average consumer / Respondent ordered to pay $782 to the applicant / claim granted in part.

  23. IT v UO [2021] NZDT 1578 (11 August 2021) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Property agreement / Applicant entered into agreement to purchase a property from respondent / Applicant claimed $2,800.00 from respondent for cleaning, removal of cat door, tiling wardrobe and replacing wardrobe sliding doors / Applicant also claimed compensation for missing swipe cards and keys / Whether respondent breached contract / What damages, if any, were payable/ Held: no obligation in written agreement to clean house before settlement / no breach in relation to cleaning / no written agreement relating to cat door and tiling wardrobe / no agreement to attend to those matters was proven / absence of wardrobe sliding doors was breach of contract / failure to provide all keys and swipe cards was breach of agreement / on evidence respondent must pay cost of $418.10 for replacement swipe cards and keys /  Quote provided for sliding doors was lower than applicant’s claim so he can only recover $2,150.00 for doors / Respondent ordered to pay total sum of $2,568,10 to appli...

  24. SX Ltd v RO Ltd [2021] NZDT 1554 (11 August 2021) [PDF, 244 KB]

    Contract / Scaffolding hiring charge / Respondent entered into a contract with Applicant for reroofing and guttering of a property for $674,500.00 / Quoted cost included cost of installing and dismantling scaffolding / Respondent paid $232,702.50 as a deposit / Applicant claimed $30,000 for scaffolding hire charges not paid by Applicant in accordance with the contract / What were the terms of the contract / Whether there had been a breach of contract / If so, what remedy was available / Held: Respondent breached contract / Term of contract required Respondent to pay for weekly rental cost of scaffolding / Respondent had the benefit of the scaffolding for entire reroof process / Remedy was damages to put the innocent party back in the position, they would have been in but for the breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / claim allowed

  25. DD TU v BM [2021] NZDT 1607 (10 August 2021) [PDF, 198 KB]

    Contract / Section 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased vehicle from Respondent / Applicants asked if any defects or issues / Respondent replied there were none / Applicants had vehicle serviced and discovered leaking head gasket / Applicants claimed respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicants claimed $2,500.00 for cost of repair / Held: Respondent misrepresented state of vehicle / Held: Respondent to pay $2,000.00 to Applicant because only one quote provided and risk of betterment / claim upheld