Search Results

1. S Ltd v TT [2024] NZDT 66 (11 January 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...attend the hearing although three attempts to reach her by telephone were made. In accordance with section 42(1) of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988, the hearing continued in TT’s absence. 2. TT engaged S Ltd to install an insinkerator in July 2023. This work was carried out on 21 July 2023. 3. An itemised invoice was sent for $702.54 in relation to this work. 4. In an email dated 10 September 2023 TT said payment would be made upon receipt of the warranty for the insinkerator...

2. DL v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 388 (5 September 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 388 APPLICANT DL RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. The claim is dismissed. Reasons 2. DL is seeking a refund of the hose reel she bought from D Ltd. The instructions that came with the reel were not clear and it broke in the process of being assembled and disassembled. D Ltd is disputing liabilit...

3. IG Ltd v IX Ltd [2023] NZDT 390 (29 August 2023) [pdf, 94 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 390 APPLICANT IG Ltd RESPONDENT IX Ltd The Tribunal orders: It is declared that IG Ltd is not liable for the invoices issued by IX Ltd dated 30 November 2022 for $4,471.20 and 16 December 2022 for $2,300.43. The counterclaim by IX Ltd with respect to these invoices is dismissed. Reasons: 1) In April 2019 the applicant op...

4. SX v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 195 (26 June 2023) [pdf, 215 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 195 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT M Ltd APPLICANT INSURER J Ltd The Tribunal orders: M Ltd is to pay $6,094.43 to J Ltd on or before Friday 14 July 2023. Reasons: 1. On 6 October 2022 SX parked her car in an area allocated for staff parking at the rear of the shops where she works. At midday a neighbouring shop wor...

5. KB v DC [2023] NZDT 732 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 146 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2023] NZDT 732 APPLICANT KB RESPONDENT DC The Tribunal orders: DC is to pay KB $1,000.00 on or before Friday 26 January 2024. Reasons: 1. In late July 2023 KB saw a [car] (“the Car”) for sale on Trade Me and eventually purchased it from DC. DC lives in [Location 1], and KB in [Location 2]. KB had the Car freighted to [Location 2] a...

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

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 53 APPLICANT TE RESPONDENT QU Ltd The Tribunal orders: QU Ltd is to pay TE $4,000.00 by 26 January 2023. Reasons: 1. In April 2021, TE took her laptop to QU Ltd for repairs. QU Ltd lost her laptop’s hard drive, and she claims compensation of $10,000.00. 2. Both parties attended the hearing. Background 3. On 12 Ap...

7. JY v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 64 (17 July 2023) [pdf, 189 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 64 APPLICANT JY RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. Both parties appeared at the hearing. Background [2] The applicant took his vehicle to the respondent for a warrant of fitness (WOF) inspection on 23 November 2022. T...

8. QF Ltd v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 384 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 195 KB]

   Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 384 APPLICANT QF Ltd RESPONDENT O Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. O Ltd is to pay QF Ltd $3,412.70 on or before 22 September 2023. 2. The counterclaim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. QF Ltd is an entertainment agency. O Ltd operates the O Ltd hotel in [City]. O Ltd booked a band called the NM trio to perform for two nights at a [themed...

9. HB- & UB v KN [2023] NZDT 49 (9 February 2023) [pdf, 200 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 49 APPLICANT HB APPLICANT UB RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. HB and UB purchased a tuktuk vehicle from KN for $13,500.00. They purchased the vehicle on the basis that it had a current warrant of fitness (“WOF”) and was “road legal”. 2. Shortly after purchase,...

10. QT v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 23 (21 February 2024) [pdf, 201 KB]

    ...APPLICANT QT RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim by QT is dismissed. Reasons 1. This dispute arose from a travel booking made by QT for a crossing of [redacted] on the [Ferry 1] at 8.45 am on 7 April 2023. Due to a technical fault on the [Ferry 1], QT’s wife (who was driving the family’s campervan) was rescheduled to travel on a different ferry on the evening of 7 April instead. QT had intended to avoid their two children making the long r...