Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant was riding her scooter in a cycle lane when she came to an intersection / Respondent made a turn in front of her in his car / Applicant skidded and came off her scooter / Applicant claimed to be reimbursed for the costs she incurred / Whether the Respondent breached his duty of care by crossing a cycle lane without ensuring the way was clear / Whether the Applicant was entitled to compensation / Held: evidence indicated that the Applicant came off her scooter without colliding with the Respondent’s car / Respondent did not breach his duty of care to drive with reasonable care / Applicant did not provide any corroborating evidence of costs she incurred even if a breach of duty had been established / 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.
2559 items matching your search terms
-
TN v QS [2022] NZDT 92 (1 September 2022) [PDF, 184 KB] -
TE v EX [2022] NZDT 122 (1 September 2022) [PDF, 92 KB] Property / Applicant and Respondent share a property boundary / Applicant claimed Respondent cut a cable causing damage to his home automation system / Respondent claimed Applicant cut down trees on Respondent's side of the boundary / Applicant claimed $10,389.80 / Respondent counterclaimed $9,099.00 / Held: insufficient evidence to meet burden of proof necessary to establish claims / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.
-
QH Ltd v XD Ltd [2022] NZDT 98 (1 September 2022) [PDF, 138 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent was a chain store that made hot cakes / Respondent placed an order with Applicant to supply cake boxes / Initial production was supplied to Respondent / Respondent notified Applicant of issues with quality of the boxes / Applicant continued production of boxes / Respondent assured they would pay the remaining amount but did not contact Applicant / Applicant claimed $3380.00 for outstanding balance / Held: boxes were property of the Respondent as soon as contract was formed / Full contract price payable to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay $3380.00 / Claim granted.
-
FV v UE Ltd [2022] NZDT 140 (1 September 2022) [PDF, 179 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a tumble dryer (dryer 1) for their rental property / Dryer 1 developed a heating fault / The applicant contacted the respondent for repair or replacement / The respondent was unsure as to whether or not the applicant had purchased dryer 1 from them / The respondent replaced the dryer with a second one (dryer 2) / Dryer 2 developed problems with overheating / Applicant complained to respondent / Respondent arranged for dryer 2 to be repaired / Applicant claims dryer 1 was purchased from the respondent / Applicant claims $6,000.00 in compensation / Held: On the balance of evidence the applicant was unable to prove that dryer 1 was purchased from the respondents / Held: dryer 2 was covered by the CGA, but as dryer 1 could not be proved to be purchased from the respondent then the applicant had effectively received a dryer free of charge / Claim Dismissed
-
BC v GT & TT [2022] NZDT 134 (31 August 2022) [PDF, 102 KB] Contract / Sale and purchase of property / Applicant bought a house from Respondent and his mother / Applicant claimed there was cracking in in flooring of the house caused by earthquakes / Applicant claimed Respondents falsely claimed that earthquake repairs were undertaken when they had not / Held: misrepresentation established / Applicant entitled to what he has lost by reason of the misrepresentation / Applicant not entitled to settlement sum that Respondents received from EQC / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant repair costs of $3,504 / Claim granted in part.
-
EQ & MC v IJ Ltd & SD [2022] NZDT 146 (31 August 2022) [PDF, 246 KB] Negligence / Tort / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicants purchased property relying on building report from Respondents / After purchase Applicants got two roof inspections from contractors which found roof issues / Applicants claim Respondents liable under FTA and for negligent misstatement / Applicants rely on High Court case Steel v Spence Consultants and Gary Spence [2017] NZHC 398 / Applicants claim Respondents trying to contract out of FTA obligations / Held: Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to cover this type of tort action as per section 10(1)(c) of the DTA / Reports from contractors not reliable as they are not independent / Applicants were not misled by Respondents as report clearly discloses issues with roof / Respondents were not trying to contract out of their liability under FTA due to wording of their report / Claims dismissed.
-
ZE v NE [2022] NZDT 90 (26 August 2022) [PDF, 177 KB] Negligence / Applicant outside her house when her cat was hit by the Respondent’s car / Cat required emergency treatment / Vet fees were over $3000.00 / Applicant sought a contribution of $500 from the Respondent towards treatment / Whether the Respondent negligently caused the injuries to the Applicant’s cat / Whether the Respondent was liable to pay the portion of vet fees claimed / Held: Respondent was not negligent as there was nothing he could have done to prevent the accident / Claim dismissed.
-
CB v UH Ltd [2022] NZDT 150 (26 August 2022) [PDF, 183 KB] Encroachment / Private nuisance / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours / Respondent’s property had tall trees on boundary / Previous owner kept trees trimmed but Respondent has not / Applicant claims tree limbs fell on their shed / Applicant claims encroachment of tree caused damage to their fence, garage roof and storm-water system / Applicant claims $30,000 in compensation / Held: encroachment caused damage to shed / Element of betterment with new shed roof means full amount cannot be awarded / Respondent liable for $7,428.65 for damage to shed / Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to remove a tree / No evidence of when tree started to encroach on land / Evidence of tree causing issues with garage but element of betterment with roof replacement so full amount cannot be awarded / Respondents liable for $3,732.80 for damage to garage roof / Storm-water system was damaged by root encroachment and full amount of $4,968 is awarded / Tribunal orders the respondent pay the applicant $1…
-
SH v NS [2022] NZDT 102 (26 August 2022) [PDF, 196 KB] Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant won an online auction to buy van from Respondent / Applicant paid $4000 deposit as per verbal agreement / Respondent asked for full payment to secure the deal as there was a delay to pick the van up / Applicant became aware that the auction bidding looked unusual and suspected ‘shill bidding’ / Applicant decided not to continue with purchase / Online auction investigated and found to involve illegal bidding / Held: more likely than not that the Respondent breached s 9 FTA / Applicant entitled to have $4000 deposit refunded / Claim granted.
-
LB v VB Ltd [2022] NZDT 123 (25 August 2022) [PDF, 106 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Applicant paid $39,000 towards the vehicle / Applicant had possession of the vehicle for approximately six months / Vehicle was then seized by Police as a stolen vehicle / Respondent refunded the Applicant $22,000 / Applicant claimed remaining $17,000 / Held: Applicant was not able to enjoy undisturbed possession of the vehicle / Respondent sold a vehicle they had no right to sell / Applicant entitled to a refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $17,000 / Claim granted.
-
TB v X Ltd [2022] NZDT 133 (25 August 2022) [PDF, 135 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged the Respondent to move his belongings to another city / Respondent was to be paid 50% at the time of booking and 50% upon delivery / Applicant paid deposit and belongings were shipped to a different city to be stored before delivery / Applicant’s belongings were not delivered on time / Applicant was paying rent for a property he could not live in without his belongings / Applicant tried to make contact with Respondent who was evasive / Respondent engaged third party to deliver his belongings to the designated city / Applicant claimed $1,662.50 for part performance of the contract and for two weeks rent / Held: Respondent breached the contract / Respondent made part performance of their obligations to the Applicant / Respondent failed to deliver Applicant's belongings to designated city in a reasonable time frame / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,662.50 / Claim granted.
-
GN & GO v LQ Ltd Power Company U [2022] NZDT 121 (24 August 2022) [PDF, 219 KB] Contract / Applicant purchased a new build property from the Respondent / Second Respondent was unable to connect the broadband and power for the Applicants as it could not find a connection and dropbox / Second Respondent investigated this and found that the Respondent had not provided a connection line to the dropbox / Respondent and Second Respondent found dropbox had been installed into Applicants neighbouring, but that there was no legal right for the Applicant to connect to that dropbox without significant cost / Second Respondent alternatively could have created a new dropbox / Applicants claimed $2,324.04 to have internet connected to their home, $1,280.00 for being the cost of transportation to the library where they had to work, $1,500.00 for mental stress and inconvenience / Held: Respondent had breached their obligations in the Sale and Purchase Agreement to provide fibre to the property / Second Respondent had not breached any obligations they had to the Applicants / Claim…
-
BN v NI [2022] NZDT 130 (22 August 2022) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract / Respondent signed contract for services as independent contractor with Applicant / Respondent terminated contract leaving balance of advances on commission paid / Applicant claimed payment of weekly advances and insurance premiums incurred on Respondent's behalf / Held: Respondent liable to refund advance commissions received if he did not achieve commission payment / Respondent breached contract by failing to refund Applicant for insurance premiums paid on his behalf / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,109.91 / Claim allowed.
-
EC v OM Ltd [2022] NZDT 89 (22 August 2022) [PDF, 195 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant applied to reject a television he purchased from the Respondent / Applicant wanted to receive a refund or a replacement TV / TV required repair twice over eight year period / TV was repaired without costs and the Applicant was offered a replacement TV during repair period / Whether failure of the goods was of substantial character / Held: failure of the goods was not of substantial character, was not rejected within a reasonable time and can be repaired / Claim dismissed.
-
B Ltd v KT Ltd [2022] NZDT 94 (22 August 2022) [PDF, 177 KB] Contract / Director of Respondent companies booked a property belonging to the Applicant for two nights / Applicant later discovered that the First Respondent used the Applicant’s property for photoshoots for the Second Respondent / Applicant notified the Second Respondent that it had breached the booking rules as they require permission from the owner to be obtained for photoshoots / Applicant requested $3000.00 or removal of all footage filmed at the Applicant’s property / Director of the Respondent companies offered $500 on a goodwill basis / Applicant claimed $1100, based on the difference between $1784 paid for the accommodation and commercial rate for use of the property / Held: First Respondent was not party to any contract with the Applicant / No contractual basis upon which the Applicant can charged the Second Respondent for either damages or an additional fee / No breach of contract by the Second Respondent / No term or condition in the contract relating to commercial use o…
-
GQ Ltd v OD Ltd [2022] NZDT 126 (19 August 2022) [PDF, 234 KB] Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant leased property to Respondent / Applicant states it suffered rent arrears and reinstatement cost loss / Respondent states it could not access the premises as a result COVID-19 lockdowns / Respondent notes that damage to the premises was not entirely caused by them / Respondent states not all damage was done by them, that they could not repair the premises as they could not relet the premise, and that they were not given opportunity to repair the damage / Applicant claims the amount of $21,605.52 for the cost of rent arrears and reinstatement costs / Held: Respondent would pay a portion of rent taking into consideration COVID-19 lockdowns and Applicant not satisfying that there was an agreement to extend the lease / Respondent to pay Applicant for reinstatement costs of power and water / Claim partially approved, Respondent to pay $21,605.52 to the Applicant.
-
EL v IN Ltd [2022] NZDT 149 (18 August 2022) [PDF, 165 KB] Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant engaged Respondent to transport his belongings between two cities / Applicant purchased basic insurance for the transportation / Applicants belongings were placed in a storage facility operated by a third party / Items were then moved to the Applicant's house by another moving company / While unpacking, Applicant found many of his belongings were damaged / Applicant was informed his insurance would not cover the damage / Applicant sought $3,975.00 for damaged and missing items / Respondent claimed contract was at owner's risk as per their terms and conditions / Contract was never signed by Applicant / Held: contract did not meet the requirements of the CCLA / It was a contract for carriage at limited carrier’s risk / Damage occurred while the goods were the responsibility of the Respondent / Missing items were not recorded on the inventory / No evidence that they were on the truck / Applicant entitled to $1,900.00 / Cla…
-
BE & ST v QD & U Ltd [2022] NZDT 118 (17 August 2022) [PDF, 123 KB] Contract / Contra Proferentum / Applicants booked accommodation at holiday park owned by Respondents through third party website / Applicants cancelled accommodation and asked for full refund of $397.70 / Respondents denied refund as outside 14-day cancellation period / Whether Respondent is party to contract / Whether Applicant entitled to refund / Held: Respondent party to contract / Third party website not party to contract made clear in terms and conditions / Applicants not entitled to full refund of $397.70, but are entitled to partial refund of $228.70 having subtracted cancellation fee of $169.00 from total / ambiguity around cancellation to be interpreted against interests of party that created it / Claim partially granted.
-
TT Ltd v TG Trust [2022] NZDT 136 (17 August 2022) [PDF, 152 KB] Building contracts / Building Act 2004 (B Act) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent was converting a residential dwelling into a commercial premises / Respondent engaged Applicant to install a fire alarm system and emergency lighting / Applicant completed fire alarm system and was paid by Respondent / Respondent sent Applicant building consent number via text message / Consent had not yet been approved / Council advised Respondent that consent was refused due to contravention of B Act / Respondent then carried out work for emergency lighting under the same consent number / Applicant served two infringement notices of $1,000.00 from the Council for breaching B Act, which they paid / Applicant sought $2,000.00 from the Respondent in reimbursement of the fines paid / Held: Applicant's responsibility to check validity of resource consent for installation of the fire alarm system / Not sufficient to rely on its clie…
-
LG v IU Ltd [2022] NZDT 124 (16 August 2022) [PDF, 165 KB] Contract / Applicant purchased a farm from the Respondent / Horse walker was listed as a chattel / Applicant found it did not work after settlement and claimed $27,000 to repair / Under the sale agreement the chattels must be in reasonable working order / Applicant carried out a pre-purchase inspection and informed the agent that he was not happy with its condition / Electrician was engaged to carry out repairs / Horse walker was then witnessed to be in reasonable working order / When the horse walker was checked after settlement it was found to be too dangerous to use with horses / Held: Respondent did not breach the vendor warranty in regard to the horse walker / Evidence showed it had been working shortly before settlement / No valid claim for compensation / Claim dismissed.
-
KB & PB v VI Ltd & OQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 144 (16 August 2022) [PDF, 202 KB] Warranties / Building Act 2004 (BA) / Applicants purchased property with various building and plumbing works done / Applicants discovered water leaking from bathroom to lounge ceiling / Previous owners put them in contact with Respondent 1 who had done the work / Respondent 1 agreed to fix leak but was unable to arrange a contractor to do work / Respondent 1 offered to pay for repairs if Applicants arranged contractor / Applicants claim Respondent 2 as a subcontractor for Respondent 1 is also liable / Applicants claim Respondent 1 did not carry out work with reasonable care and skill as per BA s 362I(1)(d)(i) / Held: Respondent 2 was not party to original works so not liable / Work was not up to BA standard / Applicants are entitled to $8226.74 as cost of getting repairs done / Claim partially upheld.
-
LJ Ltd v DS Ltd [2022] NZDT 147 (16 August 2022) [PDF, 206 KB] Contractual relationship / Negligence / Damage to property / Respondent was moving Applicant’s belongings by truck / Driver of truck hit a shed belonging to Applicant / Applicant claims $4,370 from Respondent for cost of repairs to shed / Respondent estimates cost of shed repair to be $3,392.50 / Held: truck driver breached duty to exercise reasonable care / Truck driver caused damage to shed / Held: Respondent is vicariously liable for cost of repairs to shed / Respondent agreed relationship was nature of employer employee and truck driver was acting in course of duties / Held: Dispute about quotes noted / Reasonable assessment of cost to repair shed reached by taking midpoint between Applicant’s quote and Respondent’s estimate / Respondent ordered to pay $3,881.25 to Applicant / Claim upheld.
-
LT Ltd v ON & NN [2022] NZDT 137 (15 August 2022) [PDF, 142 KB] Contract / Respondents rented a storage unit from Applicant company / Applicant company made three claims / Firstly, Applicants claimed Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / Secondly, Applicants claimed Respondents were responsible for damage to storage units caused by a third party / Lastly, Applicants claimed Respondents had abandoned the storage unit / Held: Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / However, Applicant had not taken steps to minimise its loss / Respondents as renters were responsible for damages caused by third parties to their unit and adjoining units / Respondents did not abandon the storage unit, but the Applicants were within their rights to remove and dispose of the goods in the unit / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $200 in costs to repair storage unit damage / Applicant could not claim the cost of breach of contract as they had breached the contract themselves by not providing the second swipe card / Claim gran…
-
MT v CE Ltd [2022] NZDT 141 (15 August 2022) [PDF, 95 KB] Contract / Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant entered into a 12 month contract with Respondent for internet and phone services / Respondent told Applicant it was shutting down the tower used to provide Applicant's phone services / Applicant declined to switch to another plan with Respondent / Applicant claimed refund of $890.75 for installation fee / Held: service was not fit for purpose / There were connectivity problems and the repeater tower was decommissioned after 14 weeks / Applicant entitled to $421.48, refund plus damages for extra costs involved in setting up with a new provider / Claim granted.
-
SN v K Ltd [2022] NZDT 117 (15 August 2022) [PDF, 108 KB] Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Parties owned adjoining sections / Applicant built a retaining wall and fence / Applicant asked Respondent to share 50% of the costs, $1656.05 / Respondent only agreed to pay $1000 / Applicant claimed $3,086.30 for the full cost of the retaining wall and $1656.05 for fencing as well as legal fees and interest / Held: retaining wall was only required because of the actions of the Applicant’s builder / Fence was attached to the retaining wall so deemed part of the same structure / Applicant failed to serve the Respondent with a FA notice / Respondent not compelled to pay for the retaining wall/fence structure / Interest and legal fees are only awarded in exceptional circumstances and do not apply here / Claim dismissed.