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

1866 items matching your search terms

  1. XT Ltd v OA Ltd [2022] NZDT 96 (9 August 2022) .pdf [PDF, 170 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / School ordered 11 books from the Applicant at a cost of $575.50 / Books were self-published by the Applicant as a limited edition of 100 copies / Applicant sent the books by courier through the Respondent / Books never reached the school / Applicant claimed $931.20 for full print run and the filing fee /  Respondent admitted liability for loss of books but disputed their value / Held: books should be valued at market price /  Market for such books is limited and largely local / Loss of the books meant that the Applicant suffered the loss of full contract price / Respondent ordered to pay $575.50 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

  2. NM & B Ltd v J Ltd & RJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1662 (9 August 2021) [PDF, 240 KB]

    Tort / Duty of Care / Respondent constructed roadway near Applicant’s property / Applicant felt vibrations at property / Applicant’s concrete floor cracked / Applicant claims damage occurred during time roadway was constructed / Applicant claims damage caused wholly or partially by roadworks / Applicant claims $22,245.02 towards repair / Held: damage to internal floor occurred during time roadway was constructed / Held: damage cause partially by roadworks / roller caused vibrations at property / vibrations primary cause of damage / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $13,350.00 towards repair / Claim allowed

  3. HL v UED Ltd [2022] NZDT 113 (7 August 2022) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Applicant engaged the Respondent company to carry out orthodonic treatment / Contract was signed by Respondent and the dentist / Balance was paid in monthly instalments / Dentist passed away / Respondent company informed the Applicant that her treatment would have to continue at another practice / Respondent indicated that they would not be passing the Applicant's balance to the other dental practice / Remainder of the Applicant's treatment performed at another dental practice /  Applicant incurred extra costs and travel expenses / Respondent argued contract was between the Applicant and the deceased dentist / Applicant argued contract was between herself and the Respondent company / Held: dentist had acted with the authority of the Respondent / Respondent company was bound by the contract / Respondent company was a party to the contract so had an obligation to provide the treatment / Costs were reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / Respondent ordered to pay Applican…

  4. BI v U Ltd [2022] NZDT 142 (5 August 2022) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Contract / Applicant had a car insurance policy with Respondent / Applicant claimed his car was stolen and lodged a claim / Applicant provided Respondent different versions of events on how the car was stolen / In any event it appeared Applicant lent his car to someone else / Respondent investigated claim / Applicant claimed value of the car with interest / Held: car was given to someone else / Not a “sudden and accidental physical loss” that Applicant insured for / Claim dismissed.

  5. ET v MC & DC [2022] NZDT 119 (5 August 2022) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant claims contribution for the erection of a new fence / Applicant claimed that the existing fence was not adequate and needed replacing / Respondents counterclaimed this decision and objected the work on the proposed fence / Applicant claimed $1248.00 for the new fence / Held: Applicant’s claim was struck out as tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim / Applicant to pay for the replacement of the section he removed / Claim dismissed, Applicant ordered to pay $560.00 to Respondents

  6. GJ Ltd v EI Ltd [2022] NZDT 103 (5 August 2022) [PDF, 199 KB]

    Contract/  Applicant entered into an agreement of sale and purchase of a business with the respondent/ Applicant claimed that proper gas bottles were installed in a zone that was not safe and needed to be moved to be legal/ Applicant claimed $8,742.11 for the cost of relocating the gas bottles / Held: Vendor did not breach its any notice, demand, requisition or outstanding requirement adversely affecting the premises/ Vendor has not breached warranty regarding any works for which a permit or building consent was required by law / Claim dismissed.

  7. KG v SQ & vehicle testing company [2022] NZDT 125 (4 August 2022) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Tort / Negligence / Bailment / Applicant had driven their motorcycle to complete a compliance check / vehicle testing company parked applicant’s motorcycle in a storage area for motorcycles / Respondent hit applicant’s motorcycle with his vehicle while exiting testing station / motorcycle was taken to third party to get repairs / Applicant claims cost of repairs from respondent and vehicle testing company / Held: vehicle testing company liable as they had complete control over the storage location of Applicant’s motorcycle / Respondent did not take proper care when exiting the vehicle testing centre / vehicle testing company and Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,840.74 / Claim upheld.

  8. LM v HD Ltd [2022] NZDT 148 (4 August 2022) [PDF, 199 KB]

    Contract / Card charges / Hotel / Applicants were guests at Respondent’s hotel / Respondents charged Applicant’s credit card $200 without notifying them / Respondents claim this was because of damage in the room / Applicants claim there was no damage / Applicants claim the charge was unfair / Held: Respondents have burden of proof to prove the damage and justify the charge to the Applicant’s credit card / Held: Respondents have not discharged burden of proof as their evidence is from over six months later / Held: no legal basis for the Respondents to charge the Applicant’s credit card $200.00 / Respondents ordered to repay the $200 / Claim upheld.

  9. HK Ltd v MO Ltd [2022] NZDT 120 (3 August 2022) [PDF, 112 KB]

    Contract / Specific Performance / Applicant and Respondent entered into contract for supply of shelving / shelving split into two types, Type A and Type B / quote for $36,000.00+GST ($41,400.00) / Respondent paid $20,700.00 to Applicant / Applicant delivered Type A shelves to Respondent / Respondent refused to pay remaining balance for Type B shelves / Applicant claims $20,700.00 plus $2,000.00 for storage of type B shelves / Respondent claims that Type B shevles did not form part of contract / Held: contract was for the supply of both types of shelves / Respondent to pay Applicant $20,700.00 / Applicant to deliver Type B shelves to Respondent upon receipt of payment / claim allowed.

  10. IH v LM [2022] NZDT 136 (3 August 2022) [PDF, 192 KB]

    Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant owns a lot adjacent to the Respondent’s / Applicant emailed a fencing notice to the Respondent proposing a fence to be erected between the two properties / Applicant did not receive a response so built a fence and invoiced the Respondent for half of the cost / The respondent states notice was not correctly served to the legal owner of the land / Applicant claims $661.25 for the erection of the fence and Applicant’s legal costs / Held: Applicant did not serve the fencing notice to the Respondent / Claim dismissed.

  11. SC v CX [2022] NZDT 116 (2 August 2022) [PDF, 204 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant rented holiday home from Respondent / Applicant was unhappy with the cleanliness of the property / Applicant advised the Respondent of the issues / Respondent organised a cleaner to remedy the problem / Applicant claimed $1560.00, a 50% reduction in the holiday home rental / Held: evidence was inconsistent and did not fully support the claim / Respondent provided a remedy within a reasonable amount of time / Holiday home found to be reasonably clean / Respondent was not in breach of the contract or of the CGA / Claim dismissed.

  12. II & SC v FX [2022] NZDT 229 (19 July 2022) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to build house extension and paid $10,000 deposit / Applicant and Respondent agreed 80% of deposit would be refundable / Applicant decided not to proceed with extension and sought $8,000 refund / Respondent declined refund / Held: Applicants’ had not agreed to proceed to build / Respondent breached contract by not refunding $8,000 / Respondent is to refund the amount and take his materials / claim allowed.

  13. MI Ltd v QD Ltd [2022] NZDT 205 (18 July 2022) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant brought reformer bed off Respondent via an online auction / Applicant was dissatisfied with its condition / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented the condition inducing her to purchase it / Applicant claimed $1,740.89, cost to repair the reformer bed together with the Tribunal’s filing fee / Held: Respondent gave opinions as to the condition of the reformer bed and did not give clear statements / Applicant made assumptions based on the Respondent's opinion / Respondent therefore did not misrepresent the reformer bed and did not induce the Applicant into the purchase / Claim dismissed.

  14. FB v TT Ltd [2022] NZDT 201 (17 July 2022) [PDF, 156 KB]

    Contract / Applicants entered into contract with Respondent to supply steel / Price of steel increased and Respondent tried to pass that cost onto the Applicant / Respondent cancelled contract and refused to supply the steel at agreed price / Applicant engaged another party to supply the steel / Applicant claimed the difference between contract price for steel and what she had to pay in the end, $5520.00 / Held: no variation to which increased costs may operate upon as no variation to the work requested / Respondent not entitled to refuse to honour the earlier agreed price / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5520.00 / Claim granted.

  15. TI v XY [2022] NZDT 243 (15 July 2022) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant’s car was parked / Respondent was towing a gated trailer / Trailer gate opened causing damage to Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer claims cost of repair $3,411.65 / Respondent claims trailer defective when they hired it / Hire company disputes claim / Held: Respondent liable for repair of Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer has paid for repairs/ Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,411.65 / Claim upheld.

  16. PI v XU [2022] NZDT 212 (12 July 2022) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent placed winning bid of $19,200 on Applicant's motor vehicle on Trademe / Respondent unable to source funds for payment / Motor vehicle relisted for sale on Trademe and sold for $10,050 / Applicant claims the difference of $9,150 / Held: Contract was cancelled and no party is obliged or entitled to perform it / Relief granted based on Applicant's time spent communicating with Respondent about payment and relisting motor vehicle / Respondent to pay Applicant $500.

  17. KD v TB Ltd [2022] NZDT 204 (11 July 2022) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant hired a trailer from the Respondent / Respondent's employee helped Applicant attach the trailer to his car / Employee pushed the trailer into Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed for damages of $1,307.38 for repairs / Held: Respondent's employee owed Applicant duty of care / Respondent vicariously liable as negligent act was in the course of normal business and in the scope of his or her employment / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,307.38 / Claim granted.

  18. N Ltd v B Ltd, SL, & I Ltd [2022] NZDT 236 (7 July 2022) [PDF, 150 KB]

    Tort / Damage or injury / Applicant claimed Respondent dumped soil on their property / Claim for contamination testing fee and removal of soil / Video evidence showed soil was illegally dumped / Second Respondent solely liable as admitted the unlawful dumping / Second Respondent had hired truck from Respondent / Second Respondent directed driver to dump the soil / Held: Second Respondent must pay the reasonable costs to rectify / Second Respondent must pay $11,615.00 invoice for clean-up and contamination testing fee / Claim granted.

  19. OX v ND [2022] NZDT 62 (29 June 2022) [PDF, 111 KB]

    Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent was head tenant / Parties signed renting agreement / Applicant had physical altercation with Respondent’s partner / Respondent was not willing to allow Applicant to return to property / Applicant obtained the intervention of the Police who obliged Respondent to return Applicant’s possessions / Applicant did not remove his possessions from his room until a month later /  To pay rent while room was unable to be let to someone else Respondent kept Applicant’s bond of $570.00 / Applicant claimed for return of bond payment subject to renting agreement / Whether either party breached contract / If so, what if any damages or compensation was payable / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of his bond because it was used to pay for unpaid rent / If the Applicant had taken his possessions away earlier then the bond would almost certainly have been refundable / Applicant’s personal circumstances did not make any difference to his obligation to pay …

  20. DN v DD Ltd [2022] NZDT 61 (28 June 2022) [PDF, 218 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant engaged Respondent to do construction work on his property / Respondent had worked on the property before and knew the Applicant’s dogs / Dogs were outside while the Respondent worked on the property and the Applicant was away / Respondent drove out of the driveway and  ran over one of the dog’s paw / Dog was taken to vet clinic for surgery / Applicant claimed $21,207.59 for vet fees, travel costs and loss of income / Whether Respondent was liable in negligence for the damage to the dog’s paw / Held: Respondent had a duty of care to adequately supervise the dogs in the absence of the Applicant  / However, actions on the day did not breach the duty of care / The dog was out of the Respondent’s usual line of sight when driving / Standard of care argued was too high / Respondent’s actions were those of a reasonable person and were not negligent / Claim dismissed.

  21. AB v CD Ltd [2022] NZDT 87 (23 June 2022) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed building report for Applicant / Applicant claimed they relied on report for  conditional purchase of property / Applicant subsequently discovered issues with property not identified in the report / Applicant claimed $20,000 from Respondent for repair expenses / Respondent denied liability / Respondent claimed he completed a visual and non-invasive inspection and reported on relevant matters / Held: Respondent did not fail to take reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not fail to provide services which are fit for purpose / Applicant not entitled to any remedy / Claim dismissed.

  22. QL v OQ [2021] NZDT 1664 (22 June 2021) [PDF, 116 KB]

    Contract / Applicant rented chair at business operated by Respondent / Applicant stated arrangement was abruptly terminated by Respondent / Applicant claimed $3,474.50 for lost earnings in period after termination of agreement / What terms were agreed regarding termination / Did Respondent unlawfully terminate agreement / If so, was Applicant entitled to sum claimed or any other sum / Held: contract was for initial three month period then continued wihtout agreed terms about termination / Respondent entitled to terminate agreement in circumstances, but notice period not reasonable / Applicant has not established he suffered financial loss / Claim dismissed. 

  23. JL v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 76 (17 June 2022) [PDF, 157 KB]

    Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered contract with Respondent to purchase house and land package / Shortly after settlement Respondent noticed cracks appearing on front path and driveway  / The cracks expanded / Respondent assured Applicant this was normal, recommended applying glue to the cracks / Applicant engaged specialist assessment / Applicant claims $4312.50 for remedial repairs and $90.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent is in breach of sections 362I and 362Q of the Act / Respondent liable to pay claimed remedial costs / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $4312.50. Tribunal fee not able to be awarded.

  24. SD v NB & JC Ltd [2021] NZDT 1711 (9 June 2021) [PDF, 200 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986  / Applicant engaged Respondent to renovate bathroom / Respondent did not complete the bathroom and ceased communication / Applicant seeks a refund of all payments / Held: the Respondent failed to perform the contract and engaged in misleading conduct when it continued to seek payment with no intention or ability to provide the work contracted for / Claim allowed / Respondent to refund $6900.00 to Applicant.