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

2258 items matching your search terms

  1. TN v T Ltd & X Ltd [2024] NZDT 340 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Consumer law / Contract / Applicant purchased phone through Respondent's website / Purchase price included trade-in value of Applicant's old phone / Estimated trade-in amount was $220.00 / When Applicant send his old phone in the trade-in value was reduced to $40.00 / Applicant claimed that undervalued his old phone / Applicant sought $418.00, based on a resale website estimate / Respondent claimed Applicant was given estimated trade-in value of $220.00 / Phone was then sent to a third party who discovered water damage and battery issues which lowered phone value to $40.00 / Held: not sufficient evidence that there was a breach of contract / Applicant given the option to accept or reject $40.00 offer / Claim dismissed.

  2. TQ v PU [2024] NZDT 266 (30 April 2024) [PDF, 194 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant ran a vinyl fair at Respondent’s venue for many years / In 2022, Applicant exchanged emails with Respondent’s venue manager about booking the venue for dates in May and November 2023 / In August 2023, Respondent advised Applicant that the November date was no longer available / Applicant sought compensation for loss of revenue and other associated costs with the fair not proceeding in November / Held: agreement between Applicant and Respondent for use of the venue in November was a pencilled-in booking / A pencilled-in booking can be cancelled by either party at any time prior to it being confirmed / Applicant’s booking was not confirmed before Respondent cancelled it / Respondent not legally obliged to make venue available to Applicant on November date / Claim dismissed.

  3. KE v JM [2024] NZDT 332 (29 April 2024) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a puppy from Respondent / Puppy advertised as pure-bred / Applicant arranged for a breed makeup test which showed the dog was not pure-bred / Applicant claimed $1,129.99 being partial refund of $1,000.00 plus $129.00 for test / Held: on balance, the representation that the puppy was purebred was a misrepresentation / Misrepresentation induced Applicant to enter contract / Unlikely Applicant would have paid $2,200.00 purchase price if she had not believed puppy to be purebred / Reasonable for Respondent to provide dollar compensation for difference in value between the puppy and a purebred dog  / Applicant entitled to a $1,000.00 refund / Applicant not allowed $129.00 for breed makeup test, as was cost incurred to prove claim / Respondent ordered to pay $1,000 / Claim allowed in part.

  4. SN v UQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 349 (29 April 2024) [PDF, 102 KB]

    Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had her car assessed by a transmission specialist / Applicant had Respondent do work advised by specialist and paid invoice / Problems persisted / Applicant took car back to Respondent for advice and a quote for further work / Respondent worked on the car and replaced a coolant pipe, and sent Applicant two invoices / Problem persisted and Applicant had car fixed elsewhere / Applicant brought claim for refund of first invoice and order that she was not required to pay other invoices / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund for first invoice / Respondent was only asked to do the work, not for advice about whether it would fix the problem / Applicant did not agree to subsequent work and therefore was not liable to pay later invoices / Claim allowed in part.

  5. EW v KR & K Ltd [2024] NZDT 319 (29 April 2024) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased inverter from Respondent / Inverter overheated and could not be repaired / First Respondent declined Applicant's request for refund / First Respondent stated inverter was water damaged / Applicant claimed full refund / Held: insufficient evidence that watermarks caused the failure of inverter / Inverter was not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to refund / Claim against First Respondent dismissed as Applicant did not form contract with him / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $588.33 / Refund reduced by 34 months of the 120 months expected life of the unit / Claim allowed in part.

  6. CG v UD Ltd [2024] NZDT 270 (28 April 2024) [PDF, 189 KB]

    Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant booked tour with Respondent’s company for himself and his parents to travel to three European cities / Applicant was unhappy with tour and said Respondent failed to deliver what was promised / Applicant sought partial refund of $4920 / Held: Respondent did not make false or misleading representations about trip / Trip covered what was offered / One hotel room was not up to standard / Applicant was entitled to room appropriate for triple occupancy, but was given twin occupancy room with added rollaway bed / Certain parts of the tour were not provided with reasonable care and skill / Breach not of substantial character as parts of trip were delivered as promised / Appropriate to award damages in relation to hotel room and overall customer experience / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant $600 / Claim allowed in part.

  7. NG v CG [2024] NZDT 343 (26 April 2024) [PDF, 145 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was stationary at give way sign when Respondent’s vehicle turned from intersecting road and hit Applicant’s car / Applicant and insurer claimed Respondent was at fault and sought recovery of losses suffered of $5752.75 / Held: crash occurred because Respondent did not make his turn with enough clearance of give way road marking where Applicant was stationary / Costs sought were fair and reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5752.75 / Claim granted.

  8. BN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 292 (26 April 2024) [PDF, 189 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a horse from Respondent / Applicant intended to develop the horse for dressage and show jumping events / Applicant declined to get a vet pre-purchase check / Applicant claimed after purchase that a pre-existing condition became apparent / Applicant claimed $24,155.06 on the basis that the horse was not fit for purpose due to pre-existing condition / Held: Applicant did not met the threshold in claiming the horse was not fit for purpose / Evidence by vets indicated horse could become an able jumping horse / No evidence found of pre-existing condition / Text messages suggested real reason for rejecting the horse was that the Applicant’s wife was not happy with the purchase / Claim dismissed.

  9. OB v CM [2024] NZDT 121 (26 April 2024) [PDF, 99 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased dog collar from Respondent for $72 / Dog collar broke shortly after purchase / Applicant requested a refund / Respondent blamed Applicant for break and begrudgingly offered a partial refund of $25 / Applicant claimed full refund plus cost of replacement collar / Held: evidence showed fraying around buckle, indicating leather was not strong enough / Respondent entitled to a full refund but not cost of replacement collar, as that was not supplied by Respondent / Respondent order to pay $72 / Claim granted in part.

  10. BL & CL v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 413 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 184 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to draw plans for their intended new home / Respondent did not deliver plans on time or addressed changes requested by Applicant / Applicant cancelled contract and sought refund of fees / Held: Respondent did not carry work with reasonable care and skill / Initial plans do not reflect brief / Plans exceeded Applicant's budget / Agreed timeline not kept and Respondent failed to respond in a timely and professional way / Applicant entitled to full refund of fees / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,875 / Claim allowed.

  11. OC v KD & BD [2024] NZDT 393 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 230 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased property from Respondents / Agreement included vendor warranty that chattels and devices would be provided in reasonable working order / After settlement, Applicant found heatpump was not working / Heatpump was assessed as being unable to be repaired and had since been replaced / Held: more likely than not that heatpump was not in working condition on date of settlement because Applicant experienced problem the first time she used the heatpump, one day after settlement / Heatpump replacement cost of $2,800.00 was reasonable / Applicant now had brand-new working heatpump, but if warranty had been met she would only have had an older working heatpump / Applicant entitled to cost of replacing heatpump, less 30% deduction for betterment / Respondents ordered to pay $1,960.00 / Claim allowed.

  12. HT v IF Ltd [2024] NZDT 333 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 217 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant booked a cruise with Respondent / Applicant cancelled booking two weeks before departure, believing Respondent had changed its Covid protection requirements from those it had advertised, resulting in no protective Covid policy at all / Applicant requested full refund of $15,212.50 / Respondent declined refund in reliance on its terms and conditions, which stated funds were non-refundable for cancellation within 90 days of departure / Applicant claimed $16,212.50, for refund plus $1,000.00 for cancelled flights, interest and mental stress / Held: Respondent did not breach contract / Applicant unable to prove that pre-departure screening or testing for COVID-19 for all passengers was a term of contract / Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent’s conduct was not misleading or deceptive / Claim dismissed.

  13. AF v FG & TI [2024] NZDT 347 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 158 KB]

    Contract / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant was moving overseas and needed someone to look after her dog until she had a place to live / Respondents agreed to look after dog / Applicant agreed to pay all of Respondents’ expenses related to dog and eventually having her sent overseas / Parties expected arrangement to be for around three months / After delays, Respondents claimed they were now the owners of the dog and refused to return her / Applicant sought order for Respondents to return dog and pay damages of $14,597.04 / Held: arrangement between parties was a contract creating legally binding obligations / Applicant remained legal owner of dog throughout arrangement / Applicant entitled to have dog returned after paying Respondents $3,314.08 costs associated with care of dog / Respondents breached contract by failing to return the dog / Applicant’s claim for damages not made out / Claim allowed in part.

  14. LC v NZ [2024] NZDT 342 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 128 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / After settlement, central heating found not to be working properly / Applicant paid for repairs which cost $396.75 / Problem not remedied so Applicant had gas valve replaced costing $908.50 / Held: agreement for sale and purchase agreement included gas central heating as a chattel in the sale / There was a warranty that central heating would be in reasonable working order on settlement / Fact central heating was not working soon after settlement was sufficient evidence to infer the problem existed on settlement day / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,305.25 / Claim granted.

  15. MC v Q Association [2024] NZDT 317 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 214 KB]

    Contract law / Applicant is a member of the Respondent, an incorporated society / At Respondent’s meeting, Applicant was to fix ventilation issues / Applicant carried out investigations and sent a report stating the ventilation system was compliant without extractor fan / Applicant sent Respondent an invoice for $5,327.20 / Applicant claims this amount against the Respondent / Held: Respondents did not engage applicant to carry out work in exchange for a fee. No contract or quasi-contract arises / Claim dismissed.

  16. LL v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 306 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 201 KB]

    Negligence / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased some sound equipment from a seller advertised on Respondent’s website / Applicant did not receive the goods / Applicant later discovered seller had been removed by Respondent from its site / Applicant subsequently learned site had been subject of a phishing scam / Applicant claimed Respondent was negligent and or breached CGA by failing to inform him the seller was a scam / Applicant claimed $720.00 from Respondent / Held: Applicant’s claim in negligence was for economic loss not for loss or destruction of property, therefore outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims in tort / Respondent’s contractual terms and conditions went to some lengths to explain Respondent was not responsible for things beyond its control / Scam was clearly example of something beyond Respondent’s control / Respondent provided services with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

  17. OH v LT [2024] NZDT 298 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed he was turning into his driveway when Respondent attempted to overtake his vehicle, causing the two vehicles to collide / Respondent claimed Applicant did not indicate in sufficient time for him to avoid a collision / Held: no independent evidence on which to judge whether Respondent acted reasonably in attempting to pass Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant failed to meet burden of proving that Respondent’s actions caused collision / Claim dismissed.

  18. KH v NK [2024] NZDT 277 (24 April 2024) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent purchased a motorhome from Respondent for $20,000.00 / Respondent had paid $5000.00 / Applicant sought remaining $15,000.00 as well as $2,450.00 for the use of his workshop / Respondent counterclaimed $27,000.00 for repairs discovered after purchase; less $14,000.00 he acknowledged he owed to the Applicant / Held: motorhome was 37 years old when purchased / Onus on Respondent to carry out his own due diligence as was a ‘buyer beware’ situation / No misrepresentation / Not sufficient certainty of a binding contract between the parties about the use of the workshop / Respondent had breached the contract by failing to pay full amount for motorhome / Respondent liable for outstanding balance of $14,000.00 / Claim partially granted and counterclaim dismissed.

  19. N Ltd v ZM & DX [2024] NZDT 444 (23 April 2024) [PDF, 208 KB]

    Contract / Respondents engaged Applicant’s property management services / Parties signed contract with 12-month fixed term / Respondent believed Applicant’s attempts to find tenant were inadequate and attempted to cancel contract / Applicant responded suggesting a reduction of rent, and noting 12-month fixed term on contract / Respondents confirmed cancellation / Respondents engaged another property management company who readvertised property for cheaper rent, after which property was tenanted quickly / Applicant invoiced Respondents for full 12-month fee / Applicant claimed $4682.80 for full 12-month fee plus $120 advertising costs / Held: Applicant did not breach its contractual obligations to Respondents who were therefore not entitled to cancel contract / Intermeddling and exclusivity clauses in contract contained a penalty component that was not enforceable / Reduction to amount claimed in damages to more accurately reflect losses likely suffered by Applicant / Respondents ordere…

  20. IN & TN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 446 (23 April 2024) [PDF, 197 KB]

    Contract / Applicants purchased property in Respondent’s development / Applicants expressed need for yard space, chose lot with most yard space / Specification documents sent prior to purchase included full-height wardrobes in each bedroom / In pre-settlement inspection, Applicants discovered useable yard space was significantly reduced by inset steps and inward gate swing, and large bulkhead was taking up significant space in one wardrobe / Applicants raised issues, Respondent stated contract allowed it to vary plans if required / Applicants claimed $2,000.00 compensation for wardrobe and $14,000.00 for yard, based on loss of volume and useable land area/amenity respectively / Held: Variations made by Respondent were of lesser quality than specified, and materially diminished value, use and enjoyment of the dwelling, in breach of contract / Applicants would not have purchased property had they known of these outcomes which were not remediable / Sums claimed were reasonable compensatio…

  21. DG & J Ltd v BM [2024] NZDT 327 (23 April 2024) [PDF, 89 KB]

    Negligence / Parties were at a speedway / While starting to drive off Respondent’s vehicle showered gravel on Applicant’s vehicle /  Applicant’s vehicle was damaged / Applicant claimed $4,224.10 for cost of repairs / Held: Respondent was negligent / Respondent breached his duty of care to the Applicant by his actions / Respondent caused extensive damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,224.10 / Claim allowed.

  22. OL Ltd v TG [2024] NZDT 312 (23 April 2024) [PDF, 168 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent engaged Applicant to advocate for them in a personal grievance with their employer / Respondent contracts with its clients on a contingency basis until the end of mediation / All additional work performed on an hourly rate / Clients required to pay fees on an hourly basis if they terminate contract prior to an outcome / Respondent terminated contract prior to reaching outcome with employer / Applicant sought payment of invoice ($5182.50) plus debt collection costs ($1042.50) / Held: contract  formed between the parties, which included terms of engagement that were not 'harsh or unconscionable'/ Applicant failed to provide its advocacy services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent entitled to 75% fee reduction, $1035.00 / Applicant unable to be awarded disputed debt collection expenses / Claim allowed in part.