Search Results

1. ED v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 465 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...asbestos roof joined to the metal lean-to roof. 14. ED’s evidence was that her initial plan was to reroof the property. But when she discussed this with UB, he advised that coating will be a cheaper option and will yield the same results as a new roof. She was assured that her roof will get a new look and the product will address possible leaks. There was also a 10-year warranty on the product and workmanship. ED says this did not occur. 15. I do not doubt that ED has continued...

2. T Ltd v BE [2024] NZDT 78 (17 January 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 8. The issue to be determined is whether BE has been unjustly enriched by the payments made by T Ltd. 9. From discussions with [internet provider], T Ltd understood that [internet provider] was continuing to provide services to an address in [Suburb]. [internet provider] would not provide further details of the address nor the nature of the services. 10. BE lived in [Suburb] at the time the relationship between the parties ended and T Ltd b...

3. GA v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 103 (21 February 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...that R Ltd’s report was not sufficient to satisfy the bank. Issues 6. The issues for the Tribunal to determine are: (a) Whether R Ltd’s report was not fit for the particular purpose made known; (b) Whether R Ltd’s failed to provide its service with reasonable care and skill; (c) If there has been a failure by R Ltd to comply with either or both of the above guarantees, whether GA is entitled to a refund of $736.00. Was R Ltd’s report not fit for the particular purpose ma...

4. ACE v ZXZ [2012] NZDT 136 (19 December 2012) [pdf, 69 KB]

   ...Issues [3] The issues to be decided are as follows: (i) Are the facts in the case of Ian Johnson Pharmacy Ltd sufficiently different from this claim that the District Court decision is distinguishable? (ii) Is ACE entitled to payment for its services? (iii) What is a reasonable quantum for the services provided by ACE? Decision Are the facts in the District Court case named above sufficiently different from this claim that the District Court decision is distinguishable?...

5. ADG v ZWT [2011] NZDT 173 (3 March 2011) [pdf, 78 KB]

   ...The Tribunal hereby orders that the Applicant’s claim is dismissed. Facts [1] In July 2003, the Respondent, ZWT, engaged the Applicant, ADG [a firm of Barristers and Solicitors] in relation to a family/custody dispute. ADG provided services for which it issued a number of invoices. ZWT paid ADG’s invoices except for the final two, dated 4 February 2004 and 30 March 2004, and a disbursement for Australian counsel retained by ADG that had been included in an earlier inv...

6. AER & AES v ZVD Ltd & ZVC [2013] NZDT 259 (8 August 2013) [pdf, 70 KB]

   ...Is there a legal relationship between AER and ZVD Ltd? [8] I find no legal relationship exists for the following reasons. Firstly, ZVC is not an employee of ZVD Ltd. ZVD Ltd is a separate legal entity from ZVC. ZVD Ltd did not provide any service to AER and AES therefore there is no contractual relationship between AER, AES and ZVD Ltd. Therefore, there can be no claim founded on contract against ZVD Ltd. Secondly, the claim is based on statements said to have been made by ZVC....

7. VH Ltd v KI [2024] NZDT 386 (24 June 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...landscaping work with a due date of 11 October 2023. VH Ltd advised the Tribunal of the multi verification process they go through with their business invoice systems before they can issue an invoice. The invoice was attached to an email from [email address]. 3. KI required a more detailed invoice than the one provided and asked for an amended invoice. On 9 October 2023 at 2.28pm he received an amended detailed invoice. Again, the invoice was attached to an email from [email address]....

8. AFV v ZUA Ltd [2013] NZDT 401 (28 August 2013) [pdf, 59 KB]

   ...of ZUA Ltd was below standard and that he should be compensated for the cost of repairs he paid to JR Ltd of $698.49. Issues [2] The issues to be decided in this claim are: (i) Did ZUA Ltd fail to use reasonable care and skill in the services it provided to AFV? In particular, did it miss a lip on the surface of the cam gear that should have been sanded? Also, did it unnecessarily use silicone sealant when the seals should have been sufficient for the job, and was the cam...

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

   ...Ltd claims $16,298.70, being the $12,347.70 outstanding amount invoiced for the roofing work (slightly less than the quoted amount) and the rest of the claimed amount being interest. 6. The issues to be determined are: • Did U Ltd provide its service with reasonable care and skill and is the product of its service fit for purpose? • What remedy, if any, is available to SN and FN? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 5 • What are the relevant terms and conditions of the c...

10. TU v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 670 (8 December 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

    ...correctly and has not throughout the duration of its use, despite extensive attempts to remedy the issues, that under the Consumer Guarantees Act, the guarantee that a product is fit for purpose has been breached. Furthermore, TU submits that the services provided by I Ltd to remedy the issues have been unsatisfactory. At the time TU lodged his claim with the Tribunal, the system had not been operational for five months. 4. Evidence of communications between TU and NG, and other...