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

2564 items matching your search terms

  1. KM v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 324 (12 January 2023) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Tort / Trespass / Applicant’s wife parked car in private car park for 5 minutes / Respondent sent breach notice to Applicant of $95.00 / Applicant filed declaration of non-liability / Respondent counterclaimed $1000 being $426.51 plus ongoing interest / Applicant willing to pay breach notice but not further collection costs and interest claimed by Respondent / Respondent claims Applicant’s wife liable in contract / Held: law of contract does not apply, this matter should be dealt with under law of trespass / Applicant not liable for costs as he was not person who parked in private car park / Because claim is based in tort and not contract , Tribunal cannot make declaration of non-liability in Applicant’s favour / Claim dismissed / Because there is no contract, Applicant’s wife is therefore not bound by the terms and conditions on Respondent’s website and is not liable for collection costs and interest / Applicant’s wife must pay Respondent $95.00 / Counterclaim partially granted.

  2. TE v QU Ltd [2023] NZDT 53 (12 January 2023) [PDF, 198 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took her laptop to the Respondent for repairs / Respondent lost her laptop’s hard drive / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 in compensation / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care of the Applicant’s hard drive / No solid evidential basis for the suggestion that the hard drive date could not have been recovered / Compensation amount considered privacy concerns and inadequate approach to secure a device containing personal customer information / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,000.00 in compensation / Claim granted.

  3. KS v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 28 (11 January 2023) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant took vintage vehicle to Respondent for work / Respondent agreed to undertake the work / Respondent left Applicant’s vehicle in rain after sandblasting / Applicant claims Respondent did not show the care and skill required under CGA / Applicant claims $6,500.00 in compensation / Held: respondent did not undertake work with due care and skill / Respondent to pay applicant $6,500.00 / Claim upheld.

  4. BX & JD v ML [2022] NZDT 283 (30 December 2022) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant was driving his truck when he struck a cattle beast /  Animal died and Applicant’s truck was extensively damaged / Applicant filed claim against Respondent, owner of a nearby farm / Applicant filed $10,000 claim for the loss of his vehicle / Held: unable to establish who owned the animal / Evidence indicated Applicant’s vehicle was damaged as a result of collision with the animal / Respondent had a duty of care to ensure all the cattle grazing on his property were not at risk of escaping onto public roads and causing harm or damage to others / Respondent breached his duty of care to road users / Applicant entitled to compensation for damage to his vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay $9,000 to the Applicant, cost of vehicle minus $1,000 for his one month of ownership / Claim granted.

  5. UL v PT [2022] NZDT 276 (23 December 2022) [PDF, 180 KB]

    Property / Applicant rented a room in Respondent’s house / After Applicant left the property the Respondent held onto $400 bond / Applicant sought return of the bond and costs, $600 / Respondent sought $5,420, $4,560 for broken tiles and $120 for cleaning costs / Held: parties did not sign a flatmate agreement before the arrangement started / Applicant had paid all rent up to the point of departure / Applicant had no other recoverable costs / Not possible to prove Respondent’s claim for broken tiles / Cleaning cost of $25 awarded for small amount of dirt under bed / Applicant entitled to receive $375 back, his bond less $25 cleaning cost/ Applicant’s claim granted in part and majority of counterclaim dismissed.  

  6. DO v TC [2022] NZDT 264 (23 December 2022) [PDF, 177 KB]

    Insurance / Applicant and Respondent involved in motor vehicle collision / Settlement of costs delayed because of questions around ownership of Applicant's vehicle / Applicant proven as the owner / Vehicle went missing from Respondent's house / Applicant claims $4,990 which is the amount paid for the car as she suffered total loss / Held: applicant bears loss of ability to sell the wreck for $650 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,350 / Claim partially allowed.

  7. B Ltd v KS [2022] NZDT 256 (21 December 2022) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Contract / Respondent requested Applicant to quote a price for emptying his septic tank / Applicant estimated $800-$900 to empty a standard 3000L tank / Respondent’s tank was 4500L / Applicant’s employee completed the job over two trips / Applicant charged Respondent $1781.38 / Respondent disputes this amount / Applicant claims $1781.38 / Held: Assumption was on Applicant to check assumption and allow Respondent to make an informed decision / Claim partially allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $1350.00.

  8. SN & FN v U Ltd [2022] NZDT 260 (21 December 2022) [PDF, 121 KB]

    Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondents to replace roof and install skylights / On-site related issues resulted from a storm which prompted inspection / As a result of the inspection findings Applicant held remaining payment to Respondent / Applicant claims $30,000 for replacement of skylights and flashings / Held: some elements of Respondent’s work not carried out with reasonable skill and care / Parts of roof not fit for purpose / Applicant’s entitled to some remedial costs / Counter claim is offset against Applicant’s costs of bringing claim to tribunal / Applicant to pay Respondent $9739.13.

  9. OT & TT v TD [2022] NZDT 271 (20 December 2022) [PDF, 108 KB]

    Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant wanted to place fence on boundary between their properties / Applicant claimed $1,545 from Respondent, half the cost of fencing work completed / Respondent denied agreeing towards fencing cost / Held: Applicant unable to prove there was a concluded agreement with Respondent / No adequate fence between the properties / No appropriate notice given by Applicant to Respondent / Respondent not liable for any costs claimed / Claim dismissed.

  10. H Ltd v KB [2022] NZDT 254 (20 December 2022) [PDF, 94 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out renovations for Respondent / Applicant and Respondent never had written contract / Renovations carried out / Respondent did not pay for renovations / Applicant claimed $1,769.40 for completed work / Respondent claimed Applicant’s representatives misrepresented contract / Held: Applicant misled Respondent about nature of contract / Not found to be intentional / Claim dismissed.

  11. B Ltd v H Ltd [2022] NZDT 270 (20 December 2022) [PDF, 182 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent and paid deposit to build trailer to transport tiny house / Trailer not constructed by two to three weeks as promised / Applicant claims refund of $7,000 deposit / Held: respondent breached express term of agreement to construct trailer within reasonable timeframe / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and claim refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,000 / Claim allowed.

  12. DD v B Ltd [2022] NZDT 258 (20 December 2022) [PDF, 185 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant paid Respondent $2700 as part-payment for installation of a balustrade / Applicant asked Respondent to contact her when they were ready to begin work / After a year, Applicant advised Respondent she could no longer proceed and requested a refund / Respondent refunded $2000 / Applicant claims the remaining $700 / Held: There was a failure of guarantee by Respondent because they had not provided the service in a reasonable timeframe as per the Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $700.

  13. FS v Q Ltd [2022] NZDT 267 (19 December 2022).pdf [PDF, 202 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant's car went into limp mode and was towed to Respondent for diagnosis and repair / Respondent ordered to replace all six fuel injectors / Vehicle went into limp mode again and was taken to a different repair shop where Applicant was advised that it is unusual for all six fuel injectors to be replaced / Applicant claims refund of four injectors / Held: no evidence given by Applicant that replacing all six fuel injectors was wrong / Claim dismissed.

  14. BE v ZI Ltd [2022] NZDT 265 (17 December 2022) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent to build new home / Applicant noticed defects in house prior to settlement and these were not remedied by Respondent to Applicant's satisfaction / Applicant claims $30,000 for the cost of repair / Held: Building contractor must remedy defects they are notified of within a reasonable time / Some defects claimed by Applicant were within acceptable tolerance within MBIE Guide / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,400 / Claim partially allowed.

  15. EX v TY [2022] NZDT 273 (16 December 2022) [PDF, 113 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car in parts from Respondent / Applicant engaged Respondent to do chroming work on some parts and paid $3,925.10 / Applicant unhappy with work carried out and seeks refund / Respondent counterclaimed $2,860.55 for storage and freight / Held: expert evidence provides Respondent did carried out work with reasonable care and skill / Applicant not entitled to refund / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim withdrawn.

  16. L Ltd v UT [2022] NZDT 266 (16 December 2022) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Contract / Applicant and Respondent signed gym membership agreement / Applicant claims no payment received and Respondent neither attended gym nor cancelled membership / Applicant claims $935 for six months of fees / Held: agreement does not allow Respondent to cancel membership until six months' fees have been paid / Respondent bound to pay for the first six months but the sixth-month fee cannot be claimed as it is not yet due / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $850 / Claim partially allowed.