Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant took over operating business after her husband died / Applicant asked Respondent to pay $19,072.30 for outstanding invoices from 2012 to 2019 / Respondent paid $14,325.40, disputed remainder which related to older invoices / Applicant claimed the balance of $4,836.90 / Whether claim barred by Limitation Act / Held: all disputed invoices issued before August 2015 / In absence of any evidence of unusually long payment terms, they would have been overdue more than six years / Late knowledge period inapplicable as true claimant is company which issued invoices / Claim statute-barred / Claim dismissed
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.
2268 items matching your search terms
-
CZ v DU [2022] NZDT 23 (2 March 2022) [PDF, 202 KB] -
CT & ID v S Ltd [2022] NZDT 7 (2 March 2022) [PDF, 153 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to perform pre-purchase inspection report on a property / Applicants became aware of issues with windows and water egress after purchasing property / Applicants claim cost to replace windows, less deduction for double glazing benefit and including filing fee / What are the relevant terms of contract / Held: contract states report is visual inspection, to be used as guide, and a reasonable attempt to identify faults on the day of the inspection / Applicants informed inspection limited to visual inspection / Whether inspection been carried out with reasonable care and skill, if not what is remedy / Held: insufficient evidence to establish Respondnt failed to use reasonable care and skill in producing report or conductin the inspection / Claim dismissed.
-
EX v IO [2022] NZDT 10 (2 March 2022) [PDF, 203 KB] Conversion / Gift / Applicant gifted scooter to his son / Applicant claimed scooter was being held by his son’s mother / Applicant claimed $479.00, the cost of the scooter / Who owned the scooter / If the Applicant owned the scooter, whether $479.99 was a reasonable amount to restore him to his original position / Held: Applicant did not own scooter / No need to consider second question / Claim dismissed
-
LK v H Ltd [2022] NZDT 28 (1 March 2022) [PDF, 181 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant booked swimming lessons for daughters / Due to a Covid-19 lockdown Respondent cancelled the lessons / Respondent offered the Applicant credit, but they declined this / Applicant claimed refund under CGA / Held: Respondent had no option but to cancel lessons following the Covid-19 pandemic lockdown / Cancellation reason was completely outside the control of the parties / Where there is a failure to comply with guarantees under CGA as a result of events outside the control of the supplier, the consumer has no right of redress against the supplier / Evidence did not establish a breach of guarantees under the CGA/ Claim dismissed.
-
FM v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 21 (28 February 2022) [PDF, 169 KB] Guarantee / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Earbuds / Applicant purchased earbuds from the Respondent / After six months the right earbud lost volume / When the Applicant contacted the Respondent he was given a cleaning guide / Applicant found that cleaning did not resolve the right earbud issue / Respondent declined to provide a replacement or a refund / Applicant claimed the sum of $470.81 for the cost of having the earbuds repaired / Were the earbuds of acceptable quality / If not, what remedy is the Applicant entitled to under the CGA / Held: earbuds were of acceptable quality / No breach of guarantee / Claim dismissed.
-
NJ Ltd v WJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 29 (25 February 2022) [PDF, 212 KB] Contract / Insurance / Applicant owns property and Respondent is insurer / Applicant contacted Respondent for cover for losses after tenant moved out / Respondent determined cover only for some of amount claimed / Applicant disputes Respondent’s application of contract and has requested determination from the Tribunal / Areas of dispute include application of excesses to claims, loss of rent and post tenancy cleaning / Held: reasonable to conclude that intentional damage, carried out at one time, should be viewed as event and one excess applied / application of excesses to various rooms or various items is unreasonable / Held: condition of premises uninhabitable / claim for loss of rent covered by policy and reasonable / Held: sufficient evidence not provided by Respondent to determine cleaning excluding from loss caused by intentional damage / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $9,850.66 to Applicant.
-
EC v CF Ltd [2022] NZDT 15 (25 February 2022) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract / Credit card / Applicant visited Respondent’s bar while intoxicated / Applicant later discovered he was charged $5,213.00 across five transactions by Respondent / Whether Respondent’s bar used Applicant’s credit card dishonestly / Whether Applicant can get a refund on the grounds of intoxication / Held: Applicant provided evidence to show he was drunk before arriving at Respondent’s bar / Applicant failed to prove that he was so very drunk he could not understand the general nature of the transactions he entered into / Not equitable in all the circumstances to set aside the contract / Contract was fully performed / Respondent’s contractors cannot take back their services / Would not be equitable for the Applicant to receive a refund for services he received when drunk / Claim dismissed.
-
NG v TF [2022] NZDT 18 (24 February 2022) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract/ Tort / Duty of care / Applicant and Respondent were socialising at the Applicant’s house / Applicant and Respondent had an argument and the Respondent was told to leave / Respondent banged on a sliding door after leaving and broke the glass in the door / Whether the Respondent agreed to pay for the cost to replace the glass / If so, was the Respondent liable to pay $462.30 / Held: evidence establishes that the Respondent agreed to pay for the cost to repair the sliding door / Respondent owed a duty of care to take reasonable care when she banged on the glass in the sliding door / Satisfied that the glass broke as a result of the Respondent’s actions / Satisfied that $462.50 was the amount that the Respondent owed to repair the door / Respondent ordered to pay $462.30 to the Applicant / Claim granted
-
CU v KI Ltd [2022] NZDT 19 (23 February 2022) [PDF, 201 KB] Consumer law / Reasonable care / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and her children were booked into a motel for nine nights / Applicant and her family received multiple unwanted visitors while staying at the motel / Applicant failed to receive an immediate response to their concerns from the motel manager / Later, the motel manager informed the Applicant that they would not be able to change rooms until the following day / The visitors became increasingly threatening leading to the Applicant and her family to leaving for alternative accommodation before the end of their planned stay / Respondent refunded $480.00 to the Applicant and provided CCTV to the Police / Applicant sought $10,000.00 for the balance of a full refund, cost of new hotel and damages for emotional stress / Whether the motel carried out its services with reasonable care and skill / What sum, if any, must the hotel pay to the Applicant / Held: unable to find that the Respondent failed to respond to the situatio…
-
IN Ltd v NB [2022] NZDT 74 (22 February 2022) [PDF, 101 KB] Contract / Respondent purchased car from Applicant / Respondent returned car to Applicant due to defects / Applicant refunded Respondent purchase price of car / Applicant claims car returned in damaged condition / Applicant claims $25,367.74 as refund of amount paid to respondent, or $17,593.75 for cost of repair / Held: damage more likely than not occured after purchase / Held: Respondent was not aware of damage when returning car / claim dismissed.
-
CN v C Ltd [2022] NZDT 57 (18 February 2022) [PDF, 146 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant rented car / Applicant mistakenly put Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) in the fuel tank / Rental company claimed $1,000 insurance excess and a further $11,352.28 for cost of replacing vehicle's fuel system / Whether exclusion for "use of incorrect fuel type" applied / Held: exclusion clause insufficiently clear to include DEF hazard / Whether rental company had duty to warn customers of DEF / Held: duty exists / Consumer was therefore insured for damage that occurred and only liable for sum of $1,000.
-
LN v JH Ltd [2022] NZDT 16 (18 February 2022) [PDF, 150 KB] Contract / Transport / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant travelled on long distance bus service / Applicant unhappy on grounds that service was late, poor driving, and lack of air-conditioning / Applicant claimed refund of $66 ticket price / Whether Respondent carried out services with reasonable care and skill / What sum, if any, Respondent must pay to Applicant / Held: bus delay outside Respondent's control / Applicant did not suffer loss due to 10 minute delay / Insufficient evidence that Respondent’s driver failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Reasonable to expect air conditioning to be working on a long trip / Air conditioning issue a failure under s 28 of the CGA / Applicant chose to remain on bus rather than cancelling contract due to lack of air conditioning / Applicant still received value from trip since main purpose was to get to his intended destination / If a consumer purchased a ticket knowing the air conditioning was not working they might expect …
-
DT v BQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 22 (15 February 2022) [PDF, 183 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2007 / Misrepresentation / Applicant booked one night’s accommodation at property owned by Respondent / Cost of accommodation was $13,50.00 plus a cleaning fee / Applicant claimed misrepresentation made about facilities offered / Advertised spa pool not working and BBQ dirty / Applicant claimed $400 as compensation / Whether there was misrepresentation / If so, whether the misrepresentation was a significant factor which induced the Applicant to book the accommodation / Whether the Applicant was entitled to all or any of $400 claimed / Held: advertised facilities were not functional / Onus on property owner to ensure accommodation was clean and of standard expected including ensuring facilities worked / Mispresentation established / Evidence established that Applicant relied on the description of the facilities in making her decision to book the property / Applicant sought compensation not full refund / Respondent to pay $400 to Applicant / Cl…
-
SI & XQ v G Ltd [2022] NZDT 40 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 119 KB] Contract / Applicants booked band through Respondents for April 2020 wedding / Applicants cancelled band and requested refund in March 2020 after border restrictions announced due to Covid-19 / Respondents refunded Applicants $2872.13 / Applicants claim $2962.13 for the balance of money paid and tribunal fee / What were the terms of the contract and was contract frustrated; if so, what is the remedy and can the filing fee be recovered / Held: terms of contract included no refund for cancellation within 30 days; cancellation terms do not prevail in this case / Held: contract was frustrated / Held: Applicants entitled to refund of $2722.13 / filing fee not recoverable / Claim allowed.
-
LQ Ltd v JN & BN [2022] NZDT 2 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 224 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Reasonable care and skill / Breach / Second respondent contracted with Applicant to repair hot water cylinder / Applicant claims payment on account / Respondents claim the cylinder lost heat three months after repairs after Applicant had attended property regarding payment / Respondents discovered issue with cylinder due to missing fuse / Whether it is more likely than not the Applicant removed the fuse; if so, how much is payable for work done / Held: Applicant most likely took out fuse / Held: Applicant not able to recover own charges but fees for work of third-party just and practicable to be paid / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $189.03 to Applicant
-
BO & CO v MI [2022] NZDT 1 (14 February 2022) [PDF, 167 KB] Fencing Act 1978 / Parties share an existing boundary fence / Respondent added to height of fence without consulting Applicants / Applicants claim for removal of the additonal height added to the fence and replacement of wooden fence with wire fence / Held: Respondent altered fence without consultation as required under s 9 of the Fencing Act / Alteration must be removed at the Respondent's cost / Respondent ordered to remove additional height and may retain cloth shade / Held: style and height of fence is satisfactory for purpose intended except containing chickens . Applicants ordered to install barrier suitable for retention of chickens / Outcome: claim allowed in part.
-
AQ & BQ v DD Ltd [2022] NZDT 4 (11 February 2022) [PDF, 96 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants bought a kitset garage / Respondent had undertaken garage installation / Various issues arose from installation / Applicants did not wish to pay final $5,000 to Respondent / Respondent pursued payment / Applicants claimed $30,000 in damages / Respondent counterclaimed for final account plus additional costs amounting to $10,000 / Both parties have claimed for compensation for any sum payable / Held: garage was consented to despite errors in the installation / Compensation payable by Respondent was offset by amount still owed by Applicants / Neither party owed the other any sum / Claim and counterclaim granted.
-
XQ v T Ltd [2022] NZDT 85 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 214 KB] Consumer law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant bought an automotive car item from Respondent / Item did not run correctly once installed in the car / Respondent gave a refund / Applicant claims the cost of the item, mechanic fees and time spent in preparation for hearing / Held: CGA applies / Respondent had the opportunity to inspect the item before providing a refund / Due to the circumstances, it could not be determined whether the item was faulty / Applicant can claim for reasonable consequential losses / Disputes Tribunal cannot award costs for hearing preparations / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $107.61 / Claim partly allowed.
-
FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 105 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants booked Respondent as photographer for their wedding / Applicant's wedding postponed because of COVID / Respondent refused to be vaccinated and suggested to proceed as planned or his contract to be either transferred to a vaccinated photographer or be cancelled with a 50% refund of paid amount / Respondent suggested to record the event using Google satellites / Applicants claim for full refund on the basis that proposed service is not reasonably fit for purpose under the CGA / Held: Applicants entitled to cancel contract as services provided by Respondent not fit for purpose / Applicant can obtain any loss or damage resulting from failure that was reasonably foreseeable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $599.00 on or before 8 March 2022 / Claim allowed.
-
ML v OJ Ltd [2022] NZDT 39 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 177 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant enrolled her child to attend afterschool care run by the Respondent for the first two terms of 2021 / In July 2021, Applicant prepaid $1,088 for the third term / Due to Covid-19 some classes were not delivered while others were moved online / Applicant sought a refund for the classes that were not delivered / Respondent asked Applicant to sign form on back of enrolment form before it would process request for refund / Applicant refused to sign the form, which contained terms regarding accepting a credit / Respondent maintained Applicant was only entitled to a credit rather than a refund / Applicant claimed a refund of $779.80 based on the Respondent’s original calculation of the credit due / Were the unsigned terms on the back of the enrolment form part of the contract / Whether the contract was frustrated / What sum, if any, should be refunded / Held: evidence indicated that the terms on the back of the enrolment form were no…
-
BE v PG Ltd [2022] NZDT 37 (8 February 2022) [PDF, 196 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and her partner entered into contracts with Respondent to provide a variety of wedding services / Contracts related to planning and styling of the wedding, floral styling and venue hire / Applicant and her partner live in Australia / Due to travel restrictions relating to Covid-19 the parties agreed to postpone the wedding / Later the Applicant and her partner advised they wished to cancel their booking / Correspondence ensued between the parties regarding refunds / Applicant received a partial refund from Respondent / Applicant sought an order for $3,312.70, the deposit amount for floral and venue hire contracts / Whether the contract was frustrated / If yes, whether the Applicant was entitled to a refund of $3,312,70 / If not, whether the Respondent was entitled to retain deposits paid / Held: contract was not frustrated / Contract was cancelled because Applicant and her partner made a decision not to take the risk of cont…
-
DD v SQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 72 (31 January 2022) [PDF, 129 KB] Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased customised paint from Respondent / Applicant did not test the shade before painting / Applicant discovered shade was incorrect after they purchased more paint / Applicant claimed cost to re-paint and scaffold the house/ Held: addition of tint did not affect the quality or usefulness of the paint / Respondent failed to take enough care when checking the colour before it was applied / Remedy sought outweighs the issue / Claim dismissed.
-
GT Ltd v SX & TX & EN Ltd [2022] NZDT 49 (27 January 2022) [PDF, 122 KB] Tort / Detinue / Applicant booked Polaris Ranger into Respondents’ workshop / Respondent refused to return the ranger until Applicant paid outstanding invoice for a different Polaris / The vehicle was returned, after Applicant filed an initial Disputes Tribunal claim / Applicant seeks damages to cover the cost of hiring an alternative vehicle while Polaris was detained / Held: It was unlawful for Respondent to withhold the Polaris / The first and third Respondent must pay the Applicant $1,100.00 for hiring costs / The claim against the second respondent is dismissed. Claim: partially upheld.
-
KC & JBH Ltd v MK [2022] NZDT 79 (24 January 2022) [PDF, 98 KB] Negligence / Respondent was uninsured and hit Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer claimed $3,197.85 for pre-accident value of car and insurance-related costs / Held: Respondent breached duty of care by failing to give way / Respondent must pay $3,020.85 for pre-accident value of car but is not liable for other costs / claim allowed.
-
CP Ltd v ES [2022] NZDT 193 (20 September 2022) [PDF, 225 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent for supply and assembly of flat pack cabin / Respondent to pay deposit of 30% on ordering and 70% upon dispatch / Respondent only paid deposit / Applicant removed doors and windows as Respondent had not paid remaining 70% after completion of assembly / Respondent installed alternative joinery at their expense for weatherproofing purposes / Applicant claimed remainder of payment being $6849 / Respondent counter-claimed $12,927.07 for manufacture and installation of joinery by third party and various remedial costs / Held: Contract stated payment was due “upon dispatch” / Contract did not contain any lien clauses / Respondent was liable to pay Applicant remaining 70% / Applicant had no right to remove any part of cabin from Respondent’s property once assembled / Respondent had right to hire third party to install joinery / Cabin not fit for purpose and not of acceptable quality / Respondent no…