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

2238 items matching your search terms

  1. BD v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 455 (6 June 2024) [PDF, 193 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 Applicant referred to Respondent for washing machine repairs / Applicant not satisfied with Respondent's services / Applicant claimed damages being repair cost, cost of second-hand replacement washing machine, cost of new module and Tribunal's fee / Held: Respondent failed to carry out services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent's technician did not install both of the brushes in the module / Applicant entitled to remedy / Applicant awarded damages being repair cost and cost of second-hand replacement washing machine / Claim allowed in part.

  2. DN v BO [2024] NZDT 430 (6 June 2024) [PDF, 184 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to paint his driveway for $2,800.00 / Applicant said the driveway was now slippery when wet / Applicant sought an order that Respondent was liable to pay $1000.00 to reseal driveway / Held: painting of the driveway was not done with reasonable care and skill and was not fit for purpose / Driveway was now slippery and dangerous when wet / Professional painter must be taken to understand that a consumer would like the resulting surface to be as safe as possible / Respondent ordered to pay $299.00, calculated cost of resealing driveway / Claim allowed in part.

  3. JX v SB [2024] NZDT 379 (6 June 2024) [PDF, 130 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant entered contract to purchase second-hand fridge from Respondent / Fridge was working at Respondent’s storage facility, but once in Applicant’s possession it tripped the house fuse box every time Applicant tried to run it / Applicant had fridge tested by an electrician, who found its insulation resistance was too low and put the user at risk of electrical shock / Applicant tried unsuccessfully to resolve issues with Respondent / Held: fridge was unsafe to use / Fridge was not of acceptable quality / Failure was substantial and Applicant would not have purchased fridge if he had known of failure / Applicant entitled to refund of purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay $455.00 / Claim allowed.

  4. KI v KB [2024] NZDT 467 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 232 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car via private sale from Respondent for $12,750.00 / Respondent advertised the car as a “great vehicle” that was “regularly serviced” / Applicant paid a deposit, then inspected and test-drove the vehicle, identifying no major issues / Within a month of purchase, major mechanical issues were identified / Applicant claimed issues were inconsistent with the vehicle having been “regularly serviced” by the Respondent and sought $7,794.39 for repairs / Held: not proven Respondent made false or misleading representations about the vehicle / Insufficient evidence to establish connection between alleged lack of servicing and problems that arose / Applicant had carried out thorough inspection of vehicle prior to purchase and neither he nor two mechanics noticed any symptoms to alert them of the major issues with car / Claim dismissed.

  5. D Ltd v G Ltd [2024] NZDT 448 (5 June 2024) [DOCX, 268 KB]

    Contract / Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased food product from Respondent for distribution to staff and customers prior to Christmas / Applicant’s employee saw a media report regarding a recall of Respondent’s product / Article advised product should be returned or disposed of / Applicant immediately contacted as many staff and customers as possible to warn them but most businesses had shut down for the holiday break / Applicant contacted Respondent seeking a refund of $6,054.75 purchase price / Respondent stated that the product must be returned for credit to be issued / Applicant claimed it was unreasonable to expect recipients to retain a tainted and unsafe product indefinitely / Applicant claimed for a refund / Held: food was not fit for human consumption / Food was considered to be perished at point of contract / Refund not dependent on return of goods / Applicant entitled to full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $6,054.75 / Claim allowed.

  6. SM v BN & NN [2024] NZDT 387 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 192 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Car did not have a WOF, but advertisement stated it would “have a fresh warrant” upon sale / After a test drive, Applicant agreed to purchase car without WOF for reduced price / Applicant took vehicle to mechanic, found repair would require removal of gearbox / Applicant claimed $3,000.00 refund of purchase price and $375.82 for cost to investigate issue / Held: no misrepresentation regarding WOF / More likely than not that faulty odometer had under-counted kilometers car had travelled / Representation that car had travelled 104,506km was therefore misrepresentation, which induced Applicant into the purchase / Insufficient evidence about extent of undercounting or effect it would have had on price / Respondent ordered to pay $500.00 for misrepresentation / Claim allowed in part.

  7. IH v QM [2024] NZDT 389 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Unconscionability / Applicant bid on Respondent’s car in online auction / Two highest bids were removed shortly before auction ended, leaving Applicant winner of auction / Respondent claimed highest bid had been removed at bidder’s request, and second highest bid had been removed accidentally / Applicant later discovered second highest bidder was a company whose address for service was Respondent’s residential address / Applicant claimed $12,000.00 on basis that shill bidding had pushed auction price up / Held: contract was unconscionable because process was carried out in unfair and unprincipled manner / Respondent claimed his brother was director of company, and was bidding on car as any other member of public / Viewed objectively, a seller’s family member being involved in increasing sale price before being removed at end of auction was unconscionable / Appropriate to vary sale price from $37,900.00 to $25,952.00, being last legitimate bid / Respondent ordered to pay Appl…

  8. BC v BQ [2024] NZDT 390 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 142 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant paid $12,000.00 deposit to secure purchase of horse from Respondent / Horse remained with Respondent, apart from a period when it was leased to Applicant for a horse camp / When Respondent retrieved horse after camp, she claimed it was lame / Applicant decided not to proceed with purchase, requested refund / Applicant claimed $12,250.00 for purchase price and filing fee / Respondent counter-claimed $8,000.00 for reduced value of horse / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract and obtain full refund until final payment was made, according to agreement / Respondent failed to prove horse suffered laminitis caused during time she was under Applicant’s responsibility / Respondent breached agreement by failing to refund Applicant / Filing fee not recoverable / Respondent ordered to pay $12,000.00 / Claim allowed in part and counter-claim dismissed.

  9. TX v CD [2024] NZDT 375 (5 June 2024) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Negligence / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Respondent was attempting to merge into Applicant’s lane / Respondent’s vehicle came into contact with Applicant’s passing vehicle / Both vehicles suffered damage / Applicant and his insurer claimed $5,143.95 for repair costs / Respondent denied liability, claiming Applicant caused accident because he was speeding / Held: suggestion that Applicant was speeding was speculation / Although Respondent did take care for most of the manoeuvre, in a brief moment she failed to see Applicant’s oncoming vehicle / Location of damage to cars was consistent with Applicant’s account of how the accident happened / Respondent ordered to pay $5,143.95 repair costs / Claim allowed.

  10. TI & NI v HJ Ltd [2024] NZDT 487 (4 June 2024) [PDF, 280 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent painted roof of Applicants’ home / Applicants claimed paint started bubbling within weeks / Applicants claimed $24,856.39 for cost of roof strip and repaint and reimbursement of coating specialist advice costs / Held: photos clearly showed blistering paint across all roof surfaces, plus several areas where paint work did not appear to have uniform finish / Respondent did not provide services with reasonable care and skill / Expert witnesses did not agree on cause of blistering, but on either explanation Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / $24,856.39 reasonable compensation / Applicants gave Respondent opportunity to put issue right but it had not done so in reasonable period of time / Applicants entitled to cost of someone else doing the work / Reasonably foreseeable Applicants would need to seek independence advice as to cause of issues / Respondent ordered to pay $24,856.39 / Claim allowed.

  11. QN v CI & EN [2024] NZDT 472 (4 June 2024) [PDF, 198 KB]

    Contract / Property (Relationships) Act 1976 / Applicant lent Second Respondent, her son, $5,000.00 to purchase a car / Applicant and Second Respondent signed contract stating Applicant would repossess car if repayments not made / Car was purchased and registered in the name of the First Respondent, the Second Respondent’s partner / First and Second Respondent later separated, and First Respondent retained possession of car / No repayment of loaned amount had been made / Applicant brought claim requesting return of car or repayment of loan / Held: First Respondent was not party to the contract between Applicant and Second Respondent / Second Respondent repudiated contract by failing to make any repayments of loaned amount / No legal relationship between Applicant and First Respondent that could allow an order for First Respondent to give vehicle to Applicant / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,999.00 / Claim partially allowed.

  12. DZ v LU & IW Ltd [2024] NZDT 469 (4 June 2024) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Contract / Respondent leased commercial premises from Applicant / Respondent sold its business, and the lease was assigned to the new business owner / The parties’ solicitors reconciled outstanding rent arrears, which were deducted from the bond paid under the lease, leaving a small balance for Respondent to pay / Applicant later became aware of some unpaid rates outstanding from when Respondent occupied premises / Applicant claimed $3,674.10 as outgoings payable by Respondent under the lease, being $3,071.55 in unpaid rates and $568.55 in late payment fees charged by Council / Respondent claimed that the reconciliation done when the lease was assigned to the new business owner was a full and final settlement / Held: the reconciliation recording rent arrears and legal fees to be offset against the bond amount did not constitute a full and final settlement, as there was no clear statement to that effect or consideration on either side / Respondent ordered to pay outstanding rates of $3,…

  13. LD v TP [2024] NZDT 368 (4 June 2024) [PDF, 236 KB]

    Contract / Applicant provided educational advocacy services for the Respondent / Respondent did not receive invoice but paid Applicant $431.28, understood to be consultation fee / Applicant suggested Respondent required decluttering assistance at her home / Respondent said she was happy to pay Applicant’s friend $30 an hour for decluttering / Applicant and her friend attended Respondent’s home to perform decluttering services to mixed results / Respondent received invoice for $1,717.74, less the $431.27 paid, for educational advocacy and decluttering services / Respondent paid for Applicant’s friend’s services but declined to pay Applicant’s charges for decluttering / Applicant claimed $1,286.46 from Respondent for balance of invoice / Held: Applicant did not explain her charging structure or seek Respondent’s agreement / No contract of service was entered into at the time / Applicant did not appropriately and effectively contract the Respondent into de-cluttering services / Charges re…

  14. TU v GX [2024] NZDT 373 (4 June 2024) [PDF, 122 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Respondent sold her cell phone to Applicant for $700.00 / Prior to sale, Respondent represented by text that a  camera lens had a crack but camera still worked “perfectly fine” / When Applicant picked up phone she discovered camera did not work / Applicant contacted Respondent to cancel contract and request refund, but Respondent refused / Subsequent professional diagnosis, costing $60.00, identified phone was in need of significant repair / Applicant traded phone in for credit of $521.00 / Held: Respondent misrepresented condition of phone / Phone was not fit for purpose / Applicant entitled to be reimbursed for her loss, being $700.00 purchase price plus diagnosis charge of $60.00, less $521.00 credit / Respondent ordered to pay $239.00 / Claim allowed.

  15. CN v B Ltd & ors [2024] NZDT 471 (31 May 2024) [PDF, 191 KB]

    Contract / Carriage of goods / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / First Respondent transported three dogs (a mature dog, and two pups) belonging to the Applicant / Days later, the puppies contracted a virus / Applicant contended puppies contracted the virus when they were transported in the Respondent’s bus / Applicant contended Respondents did not provide a service of reasonable skill and care / Applicant sought compensation for vet bill and related costs / Held: not clear that the Applicant’s puppies contracted the virus whilst in the care of the First Respondent, and being transported / Unable to establish that it was more likely than not that there was a causal link between the transportation of the puppies and the puppies’ infection / Claim dismissed.

  16. EI & OI v UX [2024] NZDT 432 (31 May 2024) [PDF, 169 KB]

    Contract / Applicants contracted with Respondent to buy a puppy advertised online / $800 was agreed price / Applicants deposited $400 initially and then paid balance prior to pickup / Subsequent events suggested the transaction was a scam / After full payment was made, further money was requested by Respondent to cover insurance and vet costs / Applicants queried additional costs / Respondent replied that she would cancel the contract and refund the money as she did not wish to sell to buyers who “could not afford puppy insurance” / No refund eventuated / Held: transaction appeared to be a scam / Possible, even probable, that Respondent’s name was fake and address was unrelated to actual sellers / Applicants entitled to a refund / Respondent ordered to pay $800.00 / Claim allowed.

  17. KT & NT v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 374 (31 May 2024) [PDF, 178 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants contracted Respondent to lay concrete at their home / Whilst laying concrete on the driveway concrete was splashed on to Applicants’ new garage door / Applicants attempted to remove splashes unsuccessfully / Respondent then attempted to remove splashes but left extensive swirls over the door / Applicants claimed for cost of replacing all the panels on the garage door / Held: Respondent liable to repair the door / Allowing concrete to splash on to the door was a breach of contractor’s duty of care to carry out service with reasonable care and skill / Applicants’ efforts to remove splashes were reasonable and did not detract from Respondent’s liability for allowing splashes to occur in the first place / Respondent ordered to meet entire replacement cost of the panels because the door was new / Respondent ordered to pay $2,587.50 / Claim allowed.

  18. XX v SU [2024] NZDT 401 (31 May 2024) [PDF, 178 KB]

    Contract / Trespass / Applicant engaged Respondent to retrofit windows in his home to reduce noise / Applicant accepted Respondent’s quote and paid $1,042.00 deposit / Respondent installed windows and sent invoice for $860.00 balance / Applicant was not happy with degree of noise reduction and also complained that sealant was not dry after a couple of days / Respondent asked to come check the windows / Applicant agreed / Respondent arrived and took the retrofit windows away / Applicant claimed $1,900.00 for deposit refund and compensation for “mental damage” / Held: Respondent removed windows without contractual right to do so / Applicant entitled to full refund / “Mental damages” not generally available in contract law / However, Respondent gained access to property on false pretext, then removed windows without permission / Respondent’s actions constituted trespass to land / Further $100.00 in nominal damages awarded for trespass / Respondent ordered to pay $1,142.00 / Claim allowed …

  19. ES v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 370 (31 May 2024) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicant purchased a massage chair from Respondent for $4,090.00 / Purchase was made through credit card financing with an initial deposit of $690.00 / Later that evening, Applicant realised chair would not fit into his house / Next day, Applicant asked to cancel purchase / Respondent refused to allow him to cancel, relying on its terms and conditions, and offered a store credit / Applicant claimed $1,000.00 from Respondent, comprising a refund of his deposit and damages for his time and stress dealing with dispute / Held: Applicant gave written notice to cancel contract day after purchasing chair / Contract therefore cancelled and Respondent must return deposit / Respondent not proven that it incurred any expenses in connection with contract / Applicant cannot recover damages for time and stress in dealing with dispute / Respondent ordered to pay $690.00 / Claim allowed in part.

  20. EQ & KQ v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 431 (30 May 2024) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Consumer law / Applicants contacted Respondent for plumbing work / Applicants said they informed Respondent that they owned neighbouring houses, and Respondent needed to ensure it attended the correct one / Applicants received an invoice for Respondent’s attendance at different address / Different address was also owned by the Applicants / Applicants said Respondent went to the wrong house which did not have a plumbing issue / Respondent stated Applicant supplied the address they attended / Respondent’s plumber carried out requested plumbing work at that property / Applicants disputed payment of $211.38 invoice / Applicant sought a ruling on their liability / Held: Respondent receptionist’s evidence was credible regarding supplied address information / Respondent’s plumber carried out actions consistent with the instructions given by Applicants / Applicants ordered to pay $211.38 / Late payment and debt collector charges made by the Respondent were not permitted / Claim allowed in part…

  21. BE v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 364 (30 May 2024) [PDF, 168 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed house plans for the Applicant / Plans failed to achieve Council consent, as part of the property was designed over a storm water easement which could not be built over / Applicant sought a refund of design fees paid ($11,861.56) and engineering costs ($5,405.00) / Held: Respondent accepted it had made an error in not researching the limitations presented by the easement / Respondent breached requirement to act with reasonable care and skill and ensure plans were fit for purpose / Applicant entitled to a refund of fees paid and consequential engineering fees, totalling $17,266.56 / Claim allowed.

  22. KH v BG [2024] NZDT 464 (29 May 2024) [PDF, 181 KB]

    Contract / Company / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant had a pre-existing personal guarantee to pay rent / Applicant claimed Respondent agreed to guarantee the rent liability under the sale and purchase agreement when she became director of the company / Company went into liquidation / Applicant as the guarantor had to pay his share of rental arrears and incurred legal costs / Applicant sought to recover $12,458.74 in rent and $2,326.66 in legal costs from Respondent / Respondent claimed she did not agree to accept any liability or to be a personal guarantor / Held: any contract of guarantee must be in writing and signed by the guarantor / Clause in agreement was not a personal guarantee / Respondent was not a personal guarantor and did not owe Applicant rent or legal costs / Claim dismissed.

  23. P Ltd v UC [2024] NZDT 384 (29 May 2024) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Contract / Applicant completed repair work on Respondent's boat / Applicant invoiced Respondent but he did not pay / Account referred to Applicant's debt collectors but they were unsuccessful / Applicant claimed $4,748.54 made up of principle amount ($1,829.06) together with contractual interest amounting to $2,919.48 / Held: Respondent breached the contract / Respondent required to pay invoiced sum of $1,829.06 / Respondent not required to pay claimed interest / Respondent had no opportunity to accept or reject the terms, so not an agreed part of the contract / Discretion to award interest / Interest calculated as $329.45 / Respondent required to pay $2,158.51 in total / Claim granted in part.

  24. TU v EN & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 479 (28 May 2024) [PDF, 108 KB]

    Contract / Building / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant engaged First Respondent’s business to renovate a bathroom and ensuite at her house, to undertake remedial work on a sagging roof line, and to build a retaining wall / Total contract price was $123,276.85 / Partway through job, First Respondent sold business to Second Respondent / Ensuite was never completed / Claim in relation to ensuite resolved by settlement / Applicant claimed $25,400.00, being in part a refund of $21,424.50 paid for the retaining wall on the basis the work was unnecessary, plus cost for remedial work to the soffits / Held: Applicant’s evidence did not prove retaining wall was unnecessary / No dispute about quality of retaining wall itself / No breach of FTA by First Respondent / Insufficient evidence for claim regarding soffits / Claim dismissed.

  25. TE v OL [2024] NZDT 458 (28 May 2024) [PDF, 114 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Engine failed shortly after purchase / Applicant claimed $19,000 purchase price plus costs / Held: vehicle had regular servicing / Not clear that the chain was rattling as assumed by Applicant / Chain failure could be unrelated to any servicing history / No warranty in private sales that allows a buyer to recover if a vehicle was later found to be defective / No misrepresentation by Respondent / No loss for Applicant / Claim dismissed.