Search Results

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

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 276 APPLICANT UL RESPONDENT PT The Tribunal orders: 1. PT is to pay to UL the sum of $375.00 on or before 10 February 2023. Reasons 1. UL rented a room in PT’s home. When he left, PT held onto the bond of $400.00. UL filed a claim seeking the return of the bond, plus costs ($600.00). PT sought cleaning costs and repairs that exceeded the value of the cla...

2. SB v IK [2024] NZDT 255 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 255 APPLICANT SB RESPONDENT IK The Tribunal orders: 1. IK is to pay SB $529.00 on or before 4pm on 19 April 2024. Reasons: 2. In December 2023 the applicant purchased a vehicle via a private sale for $6,400.00 from the respondent who said he was selling it on behalf of another. The respondent organised for a mechanical check prior to the purchase from which it was reported that an...

3. BK v XQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 261 (13 December 2022) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...[2022] NZDT 261 APPLICANT BK RESPONDENT XQ Ltd The Tribunal orders: XQ Ltd will pay BK the sum of $45 in accordance with their offer in their email dated 12 December 2022. Payment is to be made by no later than 20 January 2023. BK is not liable to pay the sum of $65 to XQ Ltd in respect of [2022 breach notice] as per their email dated 12 December 2022. The claim for a refund of the amount paid on [2019 breach notice] dated 21 March 2019 is dismissed. Re...

4. MS v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 284 (20 March 2024) [pdf, 171 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 284 APPLICANT MS RESPONDENT L Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. MS purchased an induction cooktop from L Ltd on 7 January 2023 and says it cracked on 11 October (9 months later). He approached L Ltd who told him it was not deemed a manufacturing fault saying it was impact damage where something was dropped on it. They told him a replacement hob top would...

5. KL v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 92 (1 February 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...“soft” and “firm”. KL developed a pain in his shoulder in about May 2022, and received medical treatment. He discovered that a different mattress did not result in the same pain, and so bought a new one. He requested a partial refund in August 2023, of 80% from D Ltd for the mattress bought from it, but D Ltd were unwilling to provide a refund. He said that he thought the mattress was actually a “firm” mattress and it had been misdescribed. KL filed a claim in the Disputes...

6. KB v ZA [2024] NZDT 524 (16 July 2024) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...replacement options necessarily involve an aspect of betterment. If KB puts a new engine in the vehicle he will have a better, and more valuable, vehicle. c. Part of the loss will be covered by KB’s insurance. 3 Zhou & Zhang v Watson [2023[ NZHC 2328 4 Section 27 CCLA CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 d. KB contributed to the loss by failing to take reasonable steps to ascertain the condition of the vehicle before purchase. 22. ZA is to pay KB $4,000.00....

7. EI v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 322 (18 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...The applicant seeks half the cost of reinstating the back boundary fence after a fire at the respondent’s property and half the cost of a new boundary fence on the side of her property. Both boundaries abut the respondent’s property. [2] In May 2023 the respondent’s residential rental premises were engulfed in a large fire essentially destroying the property. The respondent claims the fire was caused by its tenants’ use of a dehumidifier. This fire also destroyed the back boundary...

8. DD v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 318 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 318 APPLICANT DD RESPONDENT T Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. On 16 October 2023, DD joined the XX shop membership scheme, operated by T Ltd (the company). This scheme provides discounts on certain purchases. She paid $500.00 into her account and then purchased $150.00 of baby nappies, leaving a balance of $3...

9. BS & CS v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 314 (20 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...the cats would be transferred to [suburb] for a couple of days until the new facility was finished. However, when the consumers dropped off their car the next day, they were told the cats had not been transferred. 3. On the morning of 10 January 2023, the day the consumers were returning to [city], they received an email stating that the cattery had lost N. The supplier was unsure when the cat had gone missing (possibly five or six days before) or when she had last been fed. 4. The...

10. BL v R Ltd & U Ltd [2024] NZDT 865 (15 August 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...contacted the manufacturer, R Ltd asking for help with assessing the installation. In August 2021 R Ltd sent a technician who instructed the initial installers to adjust a few things in the ducting, however, the system continued to break down. 2. In 2023, BL was quoted $3000+ GST for another installation company to assess the failed unit. They advised that the installation of the unit was incorrect including the fact that the ducting used on the initial installation would never have wo...