Search Results

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

   ...Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 260 APPLICANT SN and FN RESPONDENT U Ltd The Tribunal orders, on the claim and counter-claim: SN and FN are to pay $9739.13 to U Ltd on or before 27 January 2023. Reasons 1. SN and FN owned a rental property at [Address]. Their property manager engaged U Ltd in mid- 2020 on SN and FN’s behalf to replace the roof on the main dwelling and install Velux skylights (where there had been clear-lite...

2. BS v KC & DC [2024] NZDT 721 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...adjoining properties in [Road]. There is currently no fence between the two properties, although there are several old fence posts from a previous fence. BS would like to build a new fence on the boundary. BS served several fencing notices in December 2023, and KC and DC served a cross notice in January 2024. BS seeks an order that KC and DC are liable to pay $8,000.00 towards the cost of a new boundary fence. 2. On 11 June 2024 I issued a decision in which I made orders for the buildi...

3. TS v SQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 538 (10 July 2024) [pdf, 168 KB]

   ...3. I find that there has not been a breach of contract by SQ Ltd. 4. TS booked return flights to [Destination City] from [Departure City] through SQ Ltd. The flights were provided by WB. The first flight departed [Departure City] on 8 December 2023. The first return flight was to depart [Destination City] on 8 January 2024. 5. TS got stuck in heavy traffic in [Departure City] on his way to the airport and missed his first flight (which was to [Layover port]). While stuck in traffic...

4. EN & SN v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 832 (5 December 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...and skill by H Ltd and the final product of H Ltd’s work is not reasonably fit for purpose. 4. There was a contract between the parties under which H Ltd agreed to grind and resurface the Applicants’ driveway. The original quote (from July 2023) for the work provided by H Ltd was to grind and resurface the driveway and the cost was $13,776.00. H Ltd say that once it started work it found “concrete cancer” in the driveway, which meant it could not just resurface the driveway. So...

5. YA & AZ v BT [2024] NZDT 765 (22 November 2024) [pdf, 118 KB]

   ...was not on the boundary. In other words, their submission was that their lack of knowledge in 2015 as to where the boundary was, invalidated their apparent consent. They only found out where the boundary was following a survey they had obtained in 2023. 17. The applicants’ further suggested that [BT and NT] had essentially entrapped them into agreeing to the hedge being planted on the applicants’ property instead of the boundary line. The applicants argued that having purchased th...

6. B Ltd v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 169 (17 April 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...Ltd a total of $13,336.69 for their work. SD sent the vehicle to NH in [city], who had extensive engine rebuild experience in high performance environments, to have the engine’s work assessed and repaired. NH provided a report dated 22 November 2023, gave evidence at the hearing on 17 January 2024 and provided a follow-up report dated 16 April 2024 in response to witness evidence filed by R Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 5. SM acknowledged that when the vehicle was re...

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

   ...purchase price, $19,000 plus costs. [4] The respondent admits the sale but denies misrepresenting the vehicle. The respondent has provided evidence the vehicle was regularly serviced by H Ltd trading as [the repair shop], the last time on 19 August 2023. The respondent also denies knowing of any issues with the timing chain or any other issues not identified in the inspection report dated 12 March 2024. Issues i) Was the vehicle meticulously maintained. ii) Was the seller aware of...

8. EH v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 423 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...direction, point of origin, the development of the fire. I prefer the view of FENZ as it is an independent professional experienced such assessments. Was it foreseeable that the straw would spontaneously ignite? 12. During the hearing on 10 October 2023 the parties agreed that it was not foreseeable that straw would ignite under normal storage practice/conditions. 13. EH believes that it was the weather conditions combined with B Ltd having stored the straw in a negligent...

9. DE v KN [2024] NZDT 890 (11 December 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 890 APPLICANT DE RESPONDENT KN The Tribunal orders: KN is ordered to pay DE a sum of $18,881.87 by 19 February 2025. Reasons: 1. The Applicant, DE, purchased [the property] from KN on 13 April 2023. 2. After settlement, DE moved into the property. In early 2024, she began conducting renovations and discovered that the property had structural issues which led to increased renovation costs as DE was required to replace frames...

10. K Ltd v UD [2024] NZDT 568 (15 July 2024) [pdf, 248 KB]

    ...its clients had not been charged. K Ltd contacted UD to confirm whether 1 or 2 LED lights had been supplied for her pool, and was advised 2 lights had been supplied. As UD had not been invoiced for the lights. K Ltd sent an invoice to her in February 2023 which UD disputes. K Ltd’s claim is for the supply of 2 LED pool lights ($1,700.00). 4. UD claims $19,297.80 for costs associated with lifting the pool out of the ground and re-placing it in the excavated hole. UD maintains K Ltd d...