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. IN Ltd v NB [2022] NZDT 74 (22 February 2022) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Respondent purchased car from Applicant / Respondent returned car to Applicant due to defects / Applicant refunded Respondent purchase price of car / Applicant claims car returned in damaged condition / Applicant claims $25,367.74 as refund of amount paid to respondent, or $17,593.75 for cost of repair / Held: damage more likely than not occured after purchase / Held: Respondent was not aware of damage when returning car / claim dismissed.

  2. CN v C Ltd [2022] NZDT 57 (18 February 2022) [PDF, 146 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant rented car / Applicant mistakenly put Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in the fuel tank / Rental company claimed $1,000 insurance excess and a further $11,352.28 for cost of replacing vehicle's fuel system / Whether exclusion for "use of incorrect fuel type" applied / Held: exclusion clause insufficiently clear to include DEF hazard / Whether rental company had duty to warn customers of DEF / Held: duty exists / Consumer was therefore insured for damage that occurred and only liable for sum of $1,000.  

  3. LN v JH Ltd [2022] NZDT 16 (18 February 2022) [PDF, 150 KB]

    Contract / Transport / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) /  Applicant travelled on long distance bus service / Applicant unhappy on grounds that service was late, poor driving, and lack of air-conditioning / Applicant claimed refund of $66 ticket price / Whether Respondent carried out services with reasonable care and skill / What sum, if any, Respondent must pay to Applicant / Held: bus delay outside Respondent's control / Applicant did not suffer loss due to 10 minute delay / Insufficient evidence that Respondent’s driver failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Reasonable to expect air conditioning to be working on a long trip / Air conditioning issue a failure under s 28 of the CGA / Applicant chose to remain on bus rather than cancelling contract due to lack of air conditioning / Applicant still received value from trip since main purpose was to get to his intended destination / If a consumer purchased a ticket knowing the air conditioning was not working they might expect …

  4. DT v BQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 22 (15 February 2022) [PDF, 183 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Misrepresentation / Applicant booked one night’s accommodation at property owned by Respondent / Cost of accommodation was $13,50.00 plus a cleaning fee / Applicant claimed misrepresentation made about facilities offered / Advertised spa pool not working and BBQ dirty / Applicant claimed $400 as compensation / Whether there was misrepresentation / If so, whether the misrepresentation was a significant factor which induced the Applicant to book the accommodation / Whether the Applicant was entitled to all or any of $400 claimed / Held: advertised facilities were not functional / Onus on property owner to ensure accommodation was clean and of standard expected including ensuring facilities worked / Mispresentation established / Evidence established that Applicant relied on the description of the facilities in making her decision to book the property / Applicant sought compensation not full refund / Respondent to pay $400 to Applicant / Cl…

  5. SI & XQ v G Ltd [2022] NZDT 40 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 119 KB]

    Contract / Applicants booked band through Respondents for April 2020 wedding / Applicants cancelled band and requested refund in March 2020 after border restrictions announced due to Covid-19 / Respondents refunded Applicants $2872.13 / Applicants claim $2962.13 for the balance of money paid and tribunal fee / What were the terms of the contract and was contract frustrated; if so, what is the remedy and can the filing fee be recovered / Held: terms of contract included no refund for cancellation within 30 days; cancellation terms do not prevail in this case / Held: contract was frustrated / Held: Applicants entitled to refund of $2722.13 / filing fee not recoverable / Claim allowed.

  6. LQ Ltd v JN & BN [2022] NZDT 2 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 224 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Reasonable care and skill / Breach / Second respondent contracted with Applicant to repair hot water cylinder / Applicant claims payment on account / Respondents claim the cylinder lost heat three months after repairs after Applicant had attended property regarding payment / Respondents discovered issue with cylinder due to missing fuse / Whether it is more likely than not the Applicant removed the fuse; if so, how much is payable for work done / Held: Applicant most likely took out fuse / Held: Applicant not able to recover own charges but fees for work of third-party just and practicable to be paid / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $189.03 to Applicant

  7. BO & CO v MI [2022] NZDT 1 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 167 KB]

    Fencing Act 1978 / Parties share an existing boundary fence / Respondent added to height of fence without consulting Applicants / Applicants claim for removal of the additonal height added to the fence and replacement of wooden fence with wire fence / Held: Respondent altered fence without consultation as required under s 9 of the Fencing Act / Alteration must be removed at the Respondent's cost / Respondent ordered to remove additional height and may retain cloth shade / Held: style and height of fence is satisfactory for purpose intended except containing chickens . Applicants ordered to install barrier suitable for retention of chickens / Outcome: claim allowed in part.

  8. AQ & BQ v DD Ltd [2022] NZDT 4 (11 February 2022) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants bought a kitset garage / Respondent had undertaken garage installation / Various issues arose from installation / Applicants did not wish to pay final $5,000 to Respondent / Respondent pursued payment / Applicants claimed $30,000 in damages / Respondent counterclaimed for final account plus additional costs amounting to $10,000 / Both parties have claimed for compensation for any sum payable / Held: garage was consented to despite errors in the installation / Compensation payable by Respondent was offset by amount still owed by Applicants / Neither party owed the other any sum / Claim and counterclaim granted.

  9. XQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 85 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 214 KB]

    Consumer law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant bought an automotive car item from Respondent / Item did not run correctly once installed in the car / Respondent gave a refund / Applicant claims the cost of the item, mechanic fees and time spent in preparation for hearing / Held: CGA applies / Respondent had the opportunity to inspect the item before providing a refund / Due to the circumstances, it could not be determined whether the item was faulty / Applicant can claim for reasonable consequential losses / Disputes Tribunal cannot award costs for hearing preparations / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $107.61 / Claim partly allowed.

  10. FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants booked Respondent as photographer for their wedding / Applicant's wedding postponed because of COVID / Respondent refused to be vaccinated and suggested to proceed as planned or his contract to be either transferred to a vaccinated photographer or be cancelled with a 50% refund of paid amount / Respondent suggested to record the event using Google satellites / Applicants claim for full refund on the basis that proposed service is not reasonably fit for purpose under the CGA / Held: Applicants entitled to cancel contract as services provided by Respondent not fit for purpose / Applicant can obtain any loss or damage resulting from failure that was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $599.00 on or before 8 March 2022 / Claim allowed.

  11. ML v OJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 39 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 177 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant enrolled her child to attend afterschool care run by the Respondent for the first two terms of 2021 / In July 2021, Applicant prepaid $1,088 for the third term / Due to Covid-19 some classes were not delivered while others were moved online / Applicant sought a refund for the classes that were not delivered / Respondent asked Applicant to sign form on back of enrolment form before it would process request for refund / Applicant refused to sign the form, which contained terms regarding accepting a credit / Respondent maintained Applicant was only entitled to a credit rather than a refund / Applicant claimed a refund of $779.80 based on the Respondent’s original calculation of the credit due / Were the unsigned terms on the back of the enrolment form part of the contract / Whether the contract was frustrated / What sum, if any, should be refunded / Held: evidence indicated that the terms on the back of the enrolment form were no…

  12. BE v PG Ltd [2022] NZDT 37 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 196 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and her partner entered into contracts with Respondent to provide a variety of wedding services /  Contracts related to planning and styling of the wedding, floral styling and venue hire / Applicant and her partner live in Australia / Due to travel restrictions relating to Covid-19 the parties agreed to postpone the wedding  / Later the Applicant and her partner advised they wished to cancel their booking / Correspondence ensued between the parties regarding refunds / Applicant received a partial refund from Respondent / Applicant sought an order for $3,312.70, the deposit amount for floral and venue hire contracts / Whether the contract was frustrated / If yes, whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund of $3,312,70 / If not, whether the Respondent was entitled to retain deposits paid / Held: contract was not frustrated / Contract was cancelled because Applicant and her partner made a decision not to take the risk of cont…

  13. DD v SQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 72 (31 January 2022) [PDF, 129 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased customised paint from Respondent / Applicant did not test the shade before painting / Applicant discovered shade was incorrect after they purchased more paint / Applicant claimed cost to re-paint and scaffold the house/ Held: addition of tint did not affect the quality or usefulness of the paint / Respondent failed to take enough care when checking the colour before it was applied / Remedy sought outweighs the issue / Claim dismissed.

  14. GT Ltd v SX & TX & EN Ltd [2022] NZDT 49 (27 January 2022) [PDF, 122 KB]

    Tort / Detinue / Applicant booked Polaris Ranger into Respondents’ workshop / Respondent refused to return the ranger until Applicant paid outstanding invoice for a different Polaris / The vehicle was returned, after Applicant filed an initial Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant seeks damages to cover the cost of hiring an alternative vehicle while Polaris was detained / Held: It was unlawful for Respondent to withhold the Polaris / The first and third Respondent must pay the Applicant $1,100.00 for hiring costs / The claim against the second respondent is dismissed. Claim: partially upheld.

  15. CP Ltd v ES [2022] NZDT 193 (20 September 2022) [PDF, 225 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent for supply and assembly of flat pack cabin / Respondent to pay deposit of 30% on ordering and 70% upon dispatch / Respondent only paid deposit / Applicant removed doors and windows as Respondent had not paid remaining 70% after completion of assembly / Respondent installed alternative joinery at their expense for weatherproofing purposes / Applicant claimed remainder of payment being $6849 / Respondent counter-claimed $12,927.07 for manufacture and installation of joinery by third party and various remedial costs / Held: Contract stated payment was due “upon dispatch” / Contract did not contain any lien clauses / Respondent was liable to pay Applicant remaining 70% / Applicant had no right to remove any part of cabin from Respondent’s property once assembled / Respondent had right to hire third party to install joinery / Cabin not fit for purpose and not of acceptable quality / Respondent no…

  16. GG Ltd v IN Ltd [2022] NZDT 3 (19 January 2022) [PDF, 238 KB]

    Contract / Companies Act 1993 / Applicant company placed in liquidation and through its liquidator brings a claim against Respondent for $17,1756.50 / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant / Whether Respondent entitled to set off for costs of GPS rental contract and sign writing / Whether Respondent indebted to Applicant for unapproved invoices / Whether Respondent commencing or continuing legal proceedings against Applicant by claiming a set-off in breach of the Companies Act / Held: Respondent indebted to Applicant / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set sum owed to Applicant for sign writing / Held: Respondent entitled to off-set outstanding costs of GPS rental / Held: Respondent do not owe Applicant for unapproved invoices / Held: Respondent established a set-off and not a counter-claim / Claim dismissed

  17. GE v M Ltd [2022] NZDT 86 (17 January 2022) [PDF, 135 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted Respondent to refurbish deck / Applicant accepted initial quote and paid deposit / Respondent informed Applicant that some timber would have to be replaced resulting in additional cost / Applicant rejected updated quote / Applicant claimed punitive damages and refund of deposit less than time spent on initial work / Respondent counterclaimed for damages for reputation / Held: Respondent showed reasonable care and skill by declining to do work non-compliant with the Building Code / Contract had implied term that variation was required when defects affecting cost cannot be ascertained during inspection / Applicant's refusal to proceed under the new quote amounted to contract repudiation / Respondent entitled to cancel the contract and claim relief / Deposit covered work undertaken by Respondent therefore non-refundable / Disputes Tribunal had no jurisdiction to hear reputational damage c…

  18. EN v CQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 51 (17 January 2022) [PDF, 174 KB]

    Contract / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a second-hand TV / Seller arranged transport through the Respondent paid for by the Applicant / Respondent delivered the TV to the Applicants residence using a third party company / Applicant returned home to find the TV missing / Respondent did not follow up with the third party company / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable for the loss of the TV / Respondent claimed it had no liability because the contract was at the Applicant's risk / Was it of any consequence whether the Applicant had a contract with the Respondent / Whether the contract terms “at the owner’s risk” applied / Held: Applicant is able to make a claim, whether or not he had a contract with the Respondent as he was a consignee of the goods / Contract was not signed by the seller or the Applicant to be "at owner’s risk" / Removal after the delivery was an intentional act / Owner's risk does not apply if the loss was intentionally caused by the car…

  19. NT v BP Ltd [2022] NZDT 5 (17 January 2022) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Carriage of goods / Applicant purchased products from overseas company / Second respondent shipped goods in container / Container arrived at depot run by Third respondent / Third respondent unpacked container and repacked one falling over pallet / Once received applicant discovered damage to boxes / Applicant claims $3,680.73 as cost of unsaleable items / Respondent claims goods were damaged before it picked them up / Were goods damaged during contract of carriage by respondent / Held: yes / Photos taken by second respondent do not show damage / No damage noted when pallet repacked / Shrink wrap missing and damage consistent with forklift damage / Was contract at limited carrier’s risk / Held: yes / Parties did not sign any contract prior to collection / Is liability limited to $2,000 for all damage / Held: yes / Damaged goods were all on one pallet / Contracting carrier can only be liable for S2,000 per unit of goods / Unit is whole pallet / Clai…

  20. KX and NX v GV Ltd [2022] NZDT 47 (14 January 2022) [PDF, 212 KB]

    Contract / Applicants entered into a contract with the Respondent to hire a caravan / Applicants paid $2,100.12 for hire / Respondent emailed customers stating that all of their customers over the age of 12 would need to have Covid-19 vaccinations to use their caravans / Applicants emailed the Respondent stating that their 12 year old child was not vaccinated / Respondent said the Applicants could keep their booking as their child was on the edge of the limit / Respondent also asked whether the Applicants wished to keep the booking / Applicants sent an email indicating they would be cancelling their booking and seeking a refund / Respondent confirmed that the booking has been cancelled / Responded refunded the Applicants $1,890.12 / Respondents did not refund the reservation charge / Applicants claim the sum of $255 for the reservation charge and the Tribunal application fee / Whether the Applicants unconditionally accepted the offer to cancel the booking and receive a full refund / Wh…

  21. BT v PO Ltd [2022] NZDT 80 (12 January 2022) [PDF, 179 KB]

    Torts / Contract / Duty of care / Negligence / Liability for damages / Applicant acquired the services of the Respondent to fix the airbag light issue in his car / New Zealand went into lockdown and the Applicant's car was left in the Respondent's premises / Respondent secured the car but the building was burgled and the Applicant's car was damaged / Applicant claims for the Respondent to pay for the car damages / Held: Respondent did what was reasonable in the circumstances to take care of their customer's cars / Respondent had an express term that excludes liability and is not liable for any damage to vehicle under contract / No breach of duty of care and contract / Applicant is not entitled to claim $10,000 / Claim dismissed.

  22. KD & JBH Ltd v GU Ltd [2022] NZDT 71 (12 January 2022) [PDF, 144 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent conducted a warrant of fitness check for Applicant / Respondent did not properly close the bonnet /  When applicant drove away the bonnet flew up and caused damage to the car / Applicant and insurer claimed costs for repair / Held: Respondent’s failure to close the bonnet or inform Applicant amounted to a failure of reasonable care / Respondents to pay Applicant cost of damages / claim allowed.

  23. ND v BT [2022] NZDT 35 (12 January 2022) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent for $2,119.00 / After four years, Applicant began to have issues with the laptop screen display / Respondent advised it would cost the Applicant $1,239.70 to repair the issue / Applicant claimed the laptop was not of acceptable quality and was not fit for purpose / Applicant sought a refund of the purchase price of $2,119.00 / Whether the laptop was of reasonable quality / Whether the laptop was fit for purpose / If not, what remedy was available to the Applicant / Held: evidence suggested laptop was of acceptable quality and was fit for purpose / Reasonable for a laptop to require repairs after four years / No remedy available to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

  24. HI v TN [2022] NZDT 53 (11 January 2022) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s 35 / Applicant bought a car from the Respondent / Applicant found after sale that the car has substantial defects / Applicant claims that the Respondent misrepresented the condition of the car / Held: no misrepresentation / Applicant is a knowledgeable and experienced motor vehicle trader / Respondent answered Applicant's questions to the best of his knowledge / Applicant chose not to inspect the car / Applicant knew that the Respondent is not an expert mechanic / Claim dismissed.