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

2261 items matching your search terms

  1. IB v IY [2016] NZDT 1407 (25 Feburary 2016) [PDF, 96 KB]

    Tort / Negligence / Collision between Applicant and Respondent’s cars / Parties dispute whether Applicant had already turned left or was just turning left at the time of collision / Applicant claims $1846.44 for estimated cost of repairs to her car / Held: Respondent failed to give way to Applicant as she was required to do and is responsible for damage caused / Respondent liable in negligence for estimated cost of repairs / Claim allowed.

  2. CZ-v-XA-2016-NZDT-894-25-February-2016 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 7.2 / Applicant’s insurance company claimed against Respondent for repairs / HELD: Respondent created hazard and caused the collision by opening car door / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / repair costs quoted and actual repairs undertaken consistent with damage / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $1,708.72

  3. SR v GI [2016] NZDT 1070 (17 February 2016) [PDF, 274 KB]

    SR v GI [2016] NZDT 1070 (17 February 2016) Contract / two separate disputes / parties friends for many years first dispute / Respondent offered to take Applicant’s coffee machine panels along with the Respondent’s own panels to be polished / Applicant gave Respondent $450 in cash to cover both sets of panels, on understanding Respondent would pay back $200 / Respondent took panels to second company to polish after first company damaged one / second company charged $250 / Applicant claims Respondent kept the $450 / Respondent claims Applicant told to deduct coffee machine panel money from proceeds after Applicant sold generator on Respondent’s behalf / second dispute / Applicant gave used Suzuki RM250 2008 factory plastics to Respondent so Respondent could sell motorcycle / claims Respondent promised to replace plastics when second motorcycle returned from workshop / Respondent claims plastics were given in return for work done on Applicant’s motorcycle / Applicant claims $970 for bot…

  4. EC & ECE v UX Ltd [2016] NZDT 895 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 86 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to replace existing grout in shower / nickel shower drain was scratched and first grout failed / Respondent removed and replaced it / second scratch made / Respondent denied fault for scratch / Applicant claimed $6000 for full replacement of shower drain and regrouting, and claimed remedial work was inadequate / Held: both scratches caused by Respondent / scratches constitute a failure of reasonable care and skill / insufficient evidence to show remedial work was not of acceptable quality / it is appropriate for another supplier to replace the shower drain / another grouting job will also be required / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $600.00.

  5. DJ v VQ Ltd [2016] NZDT 897 (12 February 2016) [PDF, 22 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to hydro-seed lawn for $1,300 / grass was not growing well several weeks later / Applicant claims fence marked during spraying and claims full refund of $1,300 / Held: Applicant failed to establish evidence that Respondent’s service not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not make undertakings to provide ongoing lawn maintenance and lawn’s ultimate health depends on its ongoing care and watering / Applicant’s evidence unable to prove claims / claim dismissed

  6. DS v VH Ltd [2016] NZDT 898 (11 February 2016) [PDF, 24 KB]

    Contract / Applicant wanted to purchase a car from Respondent to convert to taxi / parties made written and verbal agreements that Respondents would fix some issues with the car and Applicant would purchase it for $21,000 / Respondents would repay $1,000 deposit if car could not be converted / Applicant asked more questions about car after agreement made, was not satisfied with answers and sent an email to cancel order / Applicant claims for refund of deposit / Held: conditional contract was formed when deposit was paid and handwritten document was signed / Applicant was only entitled to cancel contract if conditions recorded on written agreement were not met / Applicant breached contract by invalid cancellation / deposit only refundable if contract terms not met / Respondent entitled to retain deposit / claim dismissed .

  7. FP v TK [2016] NZDT 1044 (20 January 2016) [PDF, 110 KB]

    Insurance / negligence / three-car collision / Applicant stopped behind third-party vehicle / Respondent drove into back of Applicant’s vehicle causing Applicant to collide with vehicle in front / Applicant claiming $15,000 for damage to front and back of vehicle / Respondent claimed Applicant had already crashed into rear of front vehicle before Respondent hit from behind / Respondent argues that full frontal damage attributable to first impact / Held: Respondent caused at least $15,000 worth of damage even if two separate impacts were not proven / Respondent to pay $15,000 / claim allowed

  8. DR v VI Ltd [2015] NZDT 877 (22 December 2015) [PDF, 119 KB]

    Contract / disagreement over invoice cost / Applicant hired Respondent to install hot water cylinder and change pipes to a high-pressure system / Respondent sent invoice for $1,298.20 / Applicant did not pay and seeks declaration that he is only liable to pay $700 / Held: law of contact provides for a party to pay for services performed under contract / Applicant liable to pay Respondent’s invoice in full / Respondent performed service Applicant contracted them to perform / Applicant did not provide sufficient evidence to prove invoice not justified / claim dismissed, Applicant to pay full invoice of $1,298.20 to Respondent

  9. EB v UY [2015] NDT 867 (11 December 2015) [PDF, 81 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent performed renovation work on Applicant’s bathroom / several problems found with bathroom / Respondent performed remedial work / independent tile and waterproofing consultant advised applicant shower needed to be rebuilt / Applicant claims $1966.83 for remedial costs / Held: Respondent did not perform work with reasonable care and skill / finished product not of acceptable quality / Respondent handyman not tiler but still bound to meet statutory obligations towards customer under CGA / attempted remedies by Respondent unsuccessful / Applicant entitled to have work done by another supplier and recover costs from Respondent / Applicant also entitled to recover costs of independent inspection and report / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant remedial costs of $1966.83.

  10. FD v WJ Ltd & LD Ltd [2015] NZDT 1465 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 147 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from respondent / Purchase included mechanical breakdown insurance / Respondent not authorised by Second Respondent to issue mechanical breakdown insurance for vehicles over 6,000kg / Vehicle’s ABS control unit failed and replaced at cost of $3,474.60 / Applicant claims $1,479.60 against Respondent and Second Respondent for breach of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: the Respondent through their agent the Second Respondent failed to take adequate care / No consequential loss / Claim dismissed

  11. FB v TY & TYY [2015] NZDT 1049 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 159 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased truck cab and chassis from first Respondent which included mechanical breakdown insurance (MBI) / first Respondent not authorised by second Respondent (insurer) to issue MBI for that type of vehicle / insurer cancelled insurance policy and refunded premium / ABS control unit failed and was replaced / Applicant previously brought a claim against first Respondent in Motor Vehicle Disputes Tribunal (MVDT) / Applicant claimed damages against first and second respondent  for breach of CGA and loss of cover / Held: matter should not be relitigated / issues in dispute in earlier proceedings between same parties cannot be the subject of proceedings in the Tribunal / issues raised in MVDT proceedings essentially the same / first Respondent had apparent authority to act on insurer’s behalf and approve insurance / first Respondent failed to take adequate care in supplying MBI services and provide MBI policy fit for Applicant’s purpose / ins…

  12. DI v VR Ltd [2015] NZDT 865 (10 December 2015) [PDF, 126 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / guarantee of reasonable care and skill / Applicant brought velvet boots to Respondent for resoling / when returned, Applicant noticed each boot was damaged and notified Respondent / Respondent undertook repair but left boots in worse state / Applicant claims refund for re-soling, at $35, and cost of replacement boots, at $700, plus Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent breached CGA guarantee of providing service with reasonable care and skill as damage was caused during course of service provided / Applicant entitled to statutory remedies / s 32(b) and (c), CGA / Applicant entitled to reduction in value of service due to failure below price paid and any reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / reduction in value of service is its entire value of $35 due to serious nature of damage / given extent of damage, only remedy available is replacement of boots / Tribunal filing fee cannot be awarded / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay…

  13. HJJ Ltd v RQ [2015] NZDT 1033 (26 November 2015) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Contracts Enforcement Act 1956 / Applicant a debt collection agency  which claimed Respondent signed a personal guarantee for debts owing to one of its companies / Applicant’s company in liquidation so debt assigned to Applicant / whether guarantee enforceable & if not, whether Tribunal can & should rectify it / Held: customer update form signed by Respondent unenforceable as it did not identify principal debtor, or only identified one that was no longer in existence / Tribunal has jurisdiction to rectify defective guarantee but Tribunal should not exercise discretion due to significant delay in filing claim / other factors preventing exercise of discretion included Applicant’s acceptance of assignment & failure to bring evidence of it & carelessness of using defective form / Tribunal declined to make order that guarantee be rectified / claim dismissed.

  14. EI v UR Ltd [2015] NZDT 838 (29 October 2015) [PDF, 112 KB]

    Bailment / Applicant left car in Respondent’s workshop overnight / the workshop burnt down and Applicant’s car was damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable to repair the car / Held: Respondent not at fault and damage occurred despite taking all reasonable precautions / evidence shows the cause of the fire was through arson / Respondent’s non-replacement of the workshop security cameras after having been stolen a week earlier not sufficient for finding fault for the fire / Applicant could have arranged insurance cover on the car to guard against this type of risk / claim dismissed.

  15. EI v SB & HS [2015] NZDT 1437 (28 October 2015) [PDF, 300 KB]

    Liquidation / Contract / Companies Act 1993 / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent placed into liquidation and tenders invited for purchase of assets / Applicant expressed interest and sought further information from Second Respondent liquidator / Second Respondent sent Applicant confidentiality agreement and tender terms and conditions / After confidentiality agreement signed Second Respondent provided further information / Applicant submitted tender / Second Respondent discovered information not correct / Applicant claims $10,000 for difference in what they would have tendered if knew true situation / Applicant claims misconduct and misleading and deceptive conduct by Second Respondent / Held: Tribunal has jurisdiction / Applicant’s claims do not come within s 248 or 284 Companies Act / Held: Applicant cannot claim under Contractual Remedies Act / Claim must be brought against other party to contract not Respondent or Second Respondent / Held: Informatio…

  16. CV-v-XE-2015-NZDT-850-13-October-2015 [PDF, 68 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004, r 5.9 / Applicant and Respondent not insured / Applicant claimed costs for his car that was written off and transport costs / HELD: Respondent failed to stop his vehicle / therefore, Tribunal found Respondent was negligent having breached duty of care owed to Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,350 being the pre-accident value of car fixed by Tribunal / no evidence produced as to transport costs

  17. BT & FT v Council [2015] NZDT 1492 (30 September 2015) [PDF, 233 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant had a car accident in which they lost control and damaged the front wheel, Applicant claimed an earlier fuel spill on the road caused crash / Applicant claims the Council and Transport did not take necessary precautions to block the road and clean the fuel spill immediately /  Applicant believes further damage was cause to their car by towing company when car was unloaded / Held: Transports duties are performed on behalf of Council and both have a duty of care to take adequate precautions / No evidence found to suggest Transport did not in reasonable promptness clean up fuel spill / Inconclusive if further damage to car was caused by towing company or a result of moving the damaged vehicle / Claim dismissed 

  18. GS v SHH & HSG [2015] NZDT 1045 (30 September 2015) [PDF, 105 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant involved in car crash / applicant claimed crash caused by fuel spill & respondents responsible for not blocking road & cleaning it up promptly / alleged further damage caused to car when unloading it from respondent’s tow truck / applicant claimed damages  for damage to car, consequential losses & costs / whether respondents negligent, & if so , what sum payable / Held: respondents had a duty of care to take adequate precautions to prevent damage to other vehicles & respond promptly / no evidence respondent did not respond promptly / response time reasonable in the circumstances / resondents not lible for applicant’s crash / insufficient evidence respondent negligent in handling vehicle causing further damage / claim dismissed

  19. EJ v UQ Ltd [2015] NZDT 834 (29 September 2015) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a Jeep second hand which was covered by the balance of a 3-year manufacturer’s warranty / Respondent was the local authorised service repair centre for Jeep and performed 27 warranty claims for Applicant without cost to Applicant / Applicant claimed $10,887.51 from Respondent because Applicant was unhappy with the repairs / Held: no evidence to establish that the repairs performed by the Respondent failed / no evidence that wear and tear items should have been covered by a warranty claim / no failures established so nothing was recoverable / claim dismissed.

  20. CN v XN 2015 NZDT 833 (22 September 2015) [PDF, 67 KB]

    Contract / misrepresentation / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, section 6 / Applicant purchased horse for granddaughter after seeing advertisement on Trade Me / private sale / granddaughter inspected horse and rode on him on three occasions over a two-month period / Applicant claimed that Respondent did not inform her of horse’s complications, behavioural problems and that horse is unsafe / Held: onus on Applicant to establish horse was misrepresented, that Applicant induced to enter contract based on misrepresentation and that Applicant suffered damage as a result / no persuasive evidence that Respondent misrepresented horse / claim dismissed

  21. EL v UO [2015] NZDT 863 (18 September 2015) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased concert tickets via Trade Me from a seller who identified as the Respondent / concert was cancelled / Ticketmaster issued refunds to ticket purchasers / Applicant did not receive a refund from Respondent / Applicant claimed $1260 for refund received from Ticketmaster / Held: no contract between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent a victim of identity theft / Respondent not the seller / Respondent did not receive a refund / Respondent did not owe applicant any money / claim dismissed

  22. BU v SI Ltd [2015] NZDT 1460 (10 September 2015) [PDF, 183 KB]

    Negligence / Breach of duty of care / Applicant and Respondent were drivers in a motor vehicle collision / Respondent’s vehicle crossed the centre line, crashing into Applicant’s oncoming vehicle / Serious Crash Unit report found the collision was caused by the separation of the left rear wheel from the Applicant’s vehicle, leading to loss of control of the vehicle / Applicant changed the wheel 7 days before the crash, report suggested wheel was over-torqued causing its sudden separation / Applicant claims $13,444.10 for the damage to their vehicle / Held: Respondent entitled to expect the professional who repaired the tyre to check replacement tyre on vehicle / Separation of the wheel was not caused by a lack of care, Respondent not responsible for the collision / claim dismissed.

  23. DQ v VJ & VJV Ltd [2015] NZDT 831 (8 September 2015) [PDF, 131 KB]

    Contract / sale and purchase of property / Contractual Remedies Act 1979, s 6 / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA), ss 43 and 9 / applicant bought respondent’s property that was listed with second respondent / applicant unhappy about water that lies on driveway and footpath after heavy rain / claims $6,000 from respondents / Held: evidence does not prove property was misrepresented by respondents / second respondent did not engage in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or was likely to mislead or deceive required under FTA / claim dismissed

  24. DE v WV Ltd [2015] NZDT 840 (4 September 2015) [PDF, 132 KB]

    Contract / independent contractor / Applicant engaged as contract builder by Respondent through written contract / Respondent allocated 96 hours for job, which extended to 116 following issues arising in work / Respondent has paid Applicant for 122 hours / Applicant claims $2,978.50 for additional 74 unpaid hours / Held: Applicant was working on estimate rather than fixed price basis under the contract / Applicant required to invoice time that reflected assigned hours / standard industry practice allows 15% margin on estimates above allocated hours towards actual time on job / Applicant entitled to charge and be paid for 110.4 hours for original scope of work / unpredictable issues arose during job that required more time / Respondent did not allocate additional hours for this increase by mutual agreement with Applicant, as was required under contract / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant additional hours for estimate and issues that arose, totalling $1,465.10

  25. CW-v-XD-2015-NZDT-878-4-September-2015 [PDF, 115 KB]

    Contract / negligence / Applicant sought half the cost for arborist and tree work undertaken / Respondent counterclaimed for damage to his property from tree work and rent when contractors used his property as a workplace and car park / HELD: Respondent obtained resource consent to cut down tree years earlier / Applicant engaged arborist before consulting with Respondent / therefore Respondent only liable to pay half the cost of tree felling / claim partially allowed, Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $1,322.50 for tree work / Respondent did not prove on balance of probabilities that Applicant caused damage, nor can he charge rent without agreement between the parties / counterclaim dismissed