Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked accommodation with Respondent / Applicant was not satisfied with cleanliness of room / Following discussion with staff member, Applicant left and found alternative accommodation / Applicant claimed refund of $400 booking fee and $45 Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA / Applicant's photo evidence showed cleanliness of room fell below standard a reasonable consumer would expect from an accommodation provider / FTA breach not considered / Respondent failed to remedy problem within reasonable time / Reasonable for Applicant to leave based on conversation with staff member / Applicant entitled to refund of booking fee but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $400 / Claim allowed.
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.
106 items matching your search terms
-
HI v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 8 (29 February 2024) [PDF, 231 KB] -
NC v GT Limited [2024] NZDT 39 (26 February 2024) [PDF, 210 KB] Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent ran sticker collecting promotion, where consumers could exchange specific number of stickers collected for free kitchenware / Respondent ran out of stock before Applicant was able to exchange his stickers / Applicant claimed $125 ($80 for stickers and $45 Tribunal filing fee) from Respondent, plus an unspecified value in punitive damages to be paid to charity / Held: Respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or that was likely to mislead or deceive, or “bait” advertising / Reasonable quantities of the kitchenware were available, with stock only becoming low at end of promotion / Respondent’s messaging was clear that promotion was “while stocks last,” encouraging consumers to redeem stickers early / Claim dismissed.
-
NF v EN [2024] NZDT 165 (26 February 2024) [PDF, 186 KB] Property / Applicant and Respondent lived in different flats on same cross-lease development / Applicant claimed Respondent breached cross-lease by locking gate and restricting access to common path / Respondent claimed Applicant breached cross-lease by obstructing common driveway and behaving in threatening manner / Applicant claimed $100.00 being cost of filing fee and missing work to attend hearing / Held: both parties had some misunderstanding about their legal rights and obligations under the cross-lease / Tribunal does not have power to order a party do or not to a specific act / Claim dismissed.
-
JT v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 227 (24 February 2024) [PDF, 91 KB] Trespass / Applicant parked her car in a car park while visiting a bakery / Applicant later received a reminder letter from Respondent informing of an earlier parking breach notice for $95 and further $75 charge for non-payment / Respondent continued to charge administration/recovery fees of $75 every two weeks / At time of filing claim, Applicant had paid original $95 and had requests for payment from Respondent for $325 / Applicant sought order she was not liable for the $325 / Held: insufficient evidence that Applicant trespassed on private property / Respondent not entitled to charge Applicant for parking where she did / Applicant not liable for $325 fees / Respondent ordered to refund $95 paid by Applicant / Claim allowed.
-
BX v F Ltd [2024] NZDT 12 (21 February 2024) [PDF, 131 KB] Contract / Applicant parked in a carpark monitored by the Respondent / Applicant received $160 parking ticket for unauthorised parking / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for amount of parking ticket and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Applicant breached terms and conditions of car park / Signage of terms of conditions were clear and visible to users of carpark / Applicant accepted Respondent’s terms when she decided to park in the Respondent’s carpark / Applicant ordered to pay $160 parking ticket / Applicant cannot claim filing fee / Claim dismissed.
-
HI v D Ltd and FB [2024] NZDT 26 (20 February 2024) [PDF, 233 KB] Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked rental car with First Respondent using Second Respondent’s website, paid $18.02 deposit / When collecting car, Applicant was advised by First Respondent of $150 surcharge due to Applicant’s age / Applicant refused to pay surcharge as it had not been advised at time of booking, sought refund of deposit / Refund initially refused, but later paid after claim filed / Applicant sought $90 for Tribunal filing fee and $2500 damages for stress and inconvenience / Held: Second Respondent misled Applicant as to price of rental car, breaching FTA / First Respondent was not responsible for content on website, so had not breached FTA / First Respondent failed to provide customer service with reasonable care and skill, breaching CGA / Immediate loss suffered by Applicant was $18.02, which had been refunded / No further compensation payable / Claim dismissed.
-
OU v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 264 (14 February 2024) [PDF, 171 KB] Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased two tickets for a concert for $356.30 / Tickets were later advertised at a special price of $99.00 / Applicant claimed that when she bought the tickets she asked if they were the cheapest price available / Applicant claimed $203.30, being the difference between the price she paid and the discounted ticket price, plus filing fee / Held: no guarantee made when Applicant purchased tickets that they would be lowest price / No law prohibiting promotion of subsequent discounts for an event / Respondent did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct / Claim dismissed.
-
OO v SL [2024] NZDT 196 (19 January 2024) [PDF, 105 KB] Negligence / Respondent hit Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $834.00 / Applicant claimed officer failed to submit costs incurred in time for the court to consider / Applicant did not collect $834.00 / Applicant claimed $10,260.00 for written off vehicle, storage and towing costs, phone repair costs, compensation for days off work due to injury, courtesy car costs, child picking/dropping costs, and filing fee reimbursement / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / Respondent was negligent as he failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle and caused collision / Respondent liable for cost of reasonable losses suffered by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,995.92 for vehicle written off, storage and towing charges / Claim allowed in part.
-
CQ and others v JT [2023] NZDT 744 (14 December 2023) [PDF, 224 KB] Property / Fence / Fencing Act 1978 / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties and have legal right by way of easement to use driveway owned by Applicant / Fencing between driveway and Respondent's property damaged during floods / Applicant claimed $2,750 from Respondent for fencing replacement / Applicant claimed for tree removal, additional costs and filing fee / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order removal of trees / Filing fee cannot be claimed / Current fence not adequate and should be removed and replaced / Applicant may undertake work to build boundary fence / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,750 / Claim allowed in part.
-
TL v OC Ltd [2023] NZDT 775 (14 December 2023) [PDF, 235 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to complete house renovations / Applicant claimed Respondent's contractor used the wrong product when painting the cladding, which caused the paint to flake off and look uneven / Applicant sought $25,874.45 in compensation (including the filing fee of $180.00) and $1,437.50 for the cost of a technical report / Held: Respondent more likely than not used the wrong product when painting the cladding / Applicant not entitled to recover $180 filing fee / Applicant entitled to remedial costs minus depreciation ($19,694.45) / Applicant entitled to recover the cost of expert report as a foreseeable loss resulting from the breach / Respondent must pay Applicant $21,150.00 / Claim allowed.
-
BE v IC [2023] NZDT 646 (29 November 2023) [PDF, 145 KB] Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $3,800 / Respondent represented vehicle as being in great condition with no major issues / Transmission issues arose soon after purchase, mechanic advised Applicant repairs would cost $2,000–$3,000 / Applicant decided to sell car, explained fault in advertisement, received $1,800 / Applicant claimed $2,000 for loss suffered in sale, $120 for mechanics report, $90 for filing fee / Held: Respondent misrepresented vehicle, appeared to have deliberately concealed fault / Applicant entitled to compensation for losses suffered, but circumstances not met for costs award / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,120 / Claim allowed.
-
C Ltd v V Ltd & LV [2023] NZDT 658 (21 November 2023) [PDF, 262 KB] Contract / Parties entered into lease for commercial premises / Respondents did not wish to renew lease with increased rent / Respondents paid at old rate while looking for other premises / Applicant seeks shortfall between old rent and new rent, management fee, operational expenses, legal costs, management time and loss of rental income / Held: no rent arrears because of timing of rent increase / Management fee cannot be charged to the tenant / Operating expenses accepted by respondents / Each party must pay their own costs / No power to award costs for filing fee and photocopying / Respondents liable for outstanding operational expenses and damages for loss of opportunity to rent / Claim allowed, respondents to pay applicants $6,342.86
-
T Ltd v C Ltd [2023] NZDT 672 (15 November 2023) [PDF, 105 KB] Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant leased commercial unit to Respondent from 2017 / After a rent review the lease was terminated / Applicant initially claimed $7,166.83 in rental arrears including interest and legal costs / Applicant subsequently abandoned claim for interest and legal costs, but claimed refund of filing fee / Respondent counter-claimed $2,024.07 refund for a misrepresentation in the floor area / Held: Respondent not induced to enter into the contract due to the floor area being misrepresented / Respondent failed to provide any evidence to show loss suffered as a result / Applicant not entitled to a refund of filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay $5,852.55 / Claim allowed.
-
BN v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 633 (2 November 2023) [PDF, 180 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a sewing machine / Sewing machine was damaged when received by Applicant / Respondent admitted liability for damage / Respondent slow to respond but provided replacement value / Applicant claimed $532.30, $468.90 for replacement cost of sewing machine and $63.40 Tribunal filing claim and preparation cost / Held: Respondent liable for replacement value of sewing machine / Respondent’s response was slow but by a narrow margin did not meet definition of costs for unnecessarily prolonged delays in proceedings / Claim for costs dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $468.90 / Claim allowed in part.
-
TT v UN [2023] NZDT 439 (21 September 2023) [PDF, 160 KB] Contract / Property / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Following pre-settlement inspection Applicant sent list of issues to Respondent / Issues disputed and settlement proceeded / Applicant claimed $4,850 for attending to various items / Respondent counterclaimed for time off work responding to claim, and filing fee / Held: Any water leaking from connection points is at a very minor level / Hot water connection in laundry not in reasonable working order at settlement / Rangehood in reasonable working order / Insufficient evidence to prove there was a problem with the toilet / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $20 for breach of vendors’ warranty / Claim allowed in part / Counterclaim dismissed.
-
NQ & OR v CN [2023] NZDT 436 (11 September 2023) [PDF, 250 KB] Contract / Property / Applicant sold property to Respondent / Respondent concerned whether property vacated and cleaned before settlement / Applicant and Respondent agreed Respondent to retain $5,000 from settlement until property vacated and cleaned to an acceptable standard / Applicant claimed $5,422.14 which includes retention amount, interest and penalty, and tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent unable to claim for accommodation costs / No obligation on Applicant to clean property / Applicant not entitled to interest or penalty payment / Respondent not entitled to compensation for tribunal fee and legal fees / Respondent entitled to retain $200.05 for failure to provide possession in accordance with agreement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,799.95 / Claim allowed.
-
FN & NH v K Ltd & O Ltd [2023] NZDT 466 (25 August 2023) [PDF, 247 KB] Contract / Property development / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant wanted to carry out a two-lot subdivision on their property and contacted First Respondent to survey land / Second Respondent assisted with preparing and filing resource consent application / Applicant advised by different professional that up-front cost of stormwater drainage could be removed / Plan amended and resource consent varied based on amended plan / Applicant claimed $10,000 costs and losses on basis that amended plan was the correct way to do subdivision / Held: First Respondent had a duty to think about the best place to locate boundary to meet requirements and carry out subdivision in the most efficient manner / There was an option to carry out subdivision without the need for a right way easement / Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,421 / Claim allowed in part.
-
DT v TX [2023] NZDT 291 (1 August 2023) [PDF, 149 KB] Contract / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Contract contained clause allowing return of vehicle to Respondent and full refund to Applicant in certain circumstances / Applicant wished to return vehicle as a result of inspection / Applicant claimed $8,818 which included full refund, mechanical check fee and Disputes Tribunal filing fee / Held: Applicant entitled to full refund as vehicle was not well maintained as advertised / Applicant not entitled to mechanical check fee as it was carried out after purchase of vehicle / Applicant not entitled to Disputes Tribunal filing fee reimbursement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,500 / Claim allowed in part.
-
DT v TX [2023] NZDT 378 (1 August 2023) [PDF, 222 KB] Contract / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $8500 / Contract included clause allowing car to be returned for refund if inspected by mechanic within week of purchase and found to be not as advertised, requiring repairs over $500 / Applicant had car inspected, number of issues discovered / Applicant tried to return car / Respondent unwilling to give full refund, claimed issues were minor / Applicant claimed $8818 for full purchase price, cost of mechanical check, refund of filing fee / Held: car not ‘well maintained’ as advertised / Cam belt issues alone required repairs over $500 / Respondent repudiated contract by refusing to accept return of car / Applicant entitled to return car and receive refund / Applicant not entitled to compensation for mechanical check or filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8500 / Claim allowed.
-
DT v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 330 (31 July 2023) [PDF, 129 KB] Building / Building Act 2004 / Respondent manufactured and installed double-glazed doors in Applicant’s house / Eleven years later, Applicant claimed moisture issues and cracks had appeared / Applicant sought an order that the Respondent was liable to pay $4,999.00 / Held: claim barred since building work occurred more than ten years prior to filing of the claim / Claim dismissed.
-
EN & ND v QI & MI [2023] NZDT 272 (21 July 2023) [PDF, 181 KB] Contract / Applicants purchased a house from Respondent / After settlement, Applicants discovered toilet did not work properly / Plumber found drain was blocked by tree roots / Applicants asked Respondent to pay for repairs / Respondent did not pay / Applicants claimed toilet repair costs of $607.89 and filing fee / / Held: more likely than not that Respondent was responsible for repair cost / Pipes had tree roots interfering with them which had to be removed before pipes could be repaired / Suggested problem with the toilet was imminent and not in reasonable working order / Respondent breached their obligation by not paying for repairs / Tribunal unable to award costs for filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $607.89 / Claim granted.
-
JD v SL [2023] NZDT 364 (20 July 2023) [PDF, 185 KB] Negligence / Respondent drove into parked cars while driving Applicant’s car/ Respondent advised afterwards that he did not have a driver’s licence /Applicant’s car was not drivable and had to be towed away / Car was written off / Applicant’s car was insured for $5,000.00 / Insurance company would not accept claim as damage occurred when car was driven by an unlicensed driver / Respondent accepted liability for damage and agreed to pay for it at a sum of $85.00 per week / Respondent paid $425.00 before payments stopped / Applicant claimed $5,500.00 for loss of insured value of car, $280 for towing fee and $180 Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care whilst driving / Car insured for $5,000.00 which was reasonable estimate of value of car / Towing should be deducted from amount owing as offset by amount of selling car wreck / Amount paid by Respondent should be deducted too / Filing fee cost cannot be claimed in the circumstances / Respondent ordered to pay …
-
DT v KI [2023] NZDT 294 (19 July 2023) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract / Applicant provided lawn moving services to Respondent / Applicant said he was only paid for 5 out of 6 moving services provided to Respondent / Respondent disputed as to whether Applicant in fact mowed lawn / Applicant claimed $80 which included $35 unpaid lawn moving services and $45 filing fee / Held: Respondent had not proved more likely than not that his business mowed lawns of Applicant / Disputes Tribunal filing fee cannot be claimed / Claim dismissed.
-
NQ v QC [2023] NZDT 328 (19 July 2023) [PDF, 118 KB] Legal fees / Applicant engaged Respondent to act on an employment matter / Respondent’s engagement letter provided fee estimate of $2,500 to $3,500 plus GST / Applicant paid 1,900.00 / Respondent issued a further invoice totalling $1,357.00 / Applicant’s employment settlement included contribution of $4,500 plus GST ($5,175.00) to Applicant’s legal fees by former employer / Applicant claimed payment covered total fee owed / Applicant claimed refund of $1,900.00 paid to Respondent and Tribunal application fee / Respondent claimed entitled to retain $1,900.00 / Respondent counterclaimed $1,456.67, for amount due plus interest / Held: amount paid by Applicant’s prior employer to Respondent exceeded fees payable / Respondent’s claim for filing fee not allowed / Respondent’s application for payment of additional fees dismissed / Respondent ordered to pay $1,900 / Claim allowed.
-
JY v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 64 (17 July 2023) [PDF, 189 KB] Negligence / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for WOF / Vehicle failed inspection / Respondent identified faults of water and oil in power steering and faulty brakes / Applicant states Respondent’s staff were unhelpful and did not supply a quote for repair costs / Applicant claims $825.13 for refund of the warrant cost and $40 Tribunal filing fee / Held: respondent was entitled to subcontract work / Applicant unable to provide evidence that work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Applicant not entitled to compensation because of poor customer service / Applicant not entitled to refund of Tribunal filing fee / Claim dismissed.