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

2521 items matching your search terms

  1. EM v EN [2024] NZDT 395 (28 May 2024) [PDF, 88 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant claimed she was driving on road when Respondent pulled out of a side road without giving way / Respondent’s vehicle collided with Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent left the scene without stopping / Applicant brought claim to recover losses incurred in the accident / Held: intersection was controlled by a give way sign / Respondent failed to give way and was therefore liable in negligence for losses incurred / Actual cost to repair vehicle was $575.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $575.00 / Claim allowed.

  2. TN v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 388 (28 May 2024) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to do a painting job / Work was complete and Applicant was invoiced / Applicant objected to paying full amount challenging the number of hours billed / Applicant claimed non-liability / Respondent claimed quote was a fixed price quote and hours were only estimated / Respondent noted number of hours was greater than Applicant's estimate due to required preparation work  / Respondent stated total number of hours did not diverge too much from the quote document / Respondent counterclaimed amount outstanding,  agreed at the hearing to be $3,081.78 / Held: price in the contract was clearly fixed and hours required were expressed as “approximate” / Applicant required to pay $3,081.78 to Respondent / Claim dismissed and Counter-claim granted.

  3. BM & KM v L Ltd [2024] NZDT 475 (27 May 2024) [PDF, 180 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to replace their driveway / Applicants claimed large parts of new driveway failed within days of being laid / Respondent returned and replaced two thirds of the driveway / Applicants were unhappy with remedial work and asked Respondent to “satisfactorily complete” the contracted job / Respondent refused / Applicants claimed $30,000.00 refund / Respondent denied liability, contending problem with driveway was due to inadequate drainage / Held: evidence established by a wide margin that there were multiple, serious and significant defects with the driveway which could only be attributed to Respondent’s faulty workmanship / Breach of statutory guarantee to carry out service with reasonable care and skill / Failure was substantial and attempted remedy ineffective / Applicants entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay $30,000 / Claim allowed.

  4. E Ltd v KC [2024] NZDT 443 (27 May 2024) [PDF, 101 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant’s truck was driving on single tracked road when it met a ute driven by Respondent driving in other direction / Applicant stopped / Respondent did not stop and collided with Applicant’s truck / Truck was repaired for $12,747.36 which Applicant and its insurer now claimed from Respondent / Respondent denied liability on basis truck should not have been travelling on the road, and on basis Applicant’s insurer had informed him it would not pursue costs against him / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care, in particular by driving too fast to be able to stop without colliding with oncoming traffic / No contribution by Applicant to collision / Applicant’s insurer was not estopped from bringing claim due to representations made to Respondent / Repair costs reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $12,747.36 / Claim allowed.

  5. N Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 341 (25 May 2024) [PDF, 97 KB]

    Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant allowed employee to use company car for personal use / Employee exceeded time limit in carpark managed by Respondent / Respondent issued $65.00 breach notice to Applicant / Applicant refused to pay on basis it had no contract with Respondent / Respondent continued to demand payment / Applicant claimed $145.00 for filing fee and time spent dealing with Respondent’s letters / Respondent waived charges following notice of hearing, / Applicant continued with claim, arguing Respondent had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Held: Respondent made misleading representation by asserting its terms and conditions bound owners of vehicles as well as drivers / $100.00 was conservative estimate of Applicant’s time and monetary loss involved in responding to Respondent’s misleading representation / Filing fee could not be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay $100.00 / Claim allowed in part.

  6. IZ v JZ & LZ [2024] NZDT 303 (25 March 2024) [PDF, 202 KB]

    Contract / Tort / Property / Compensation / Parties had joint ownership of three-bedroom house / Property sharing agreement (PSA) resulting from previous court proceedings did not resolve conflict between parties / Applicant claimed $30,000 compensation for breaches of PSA / Held: Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make an award for any breach of the PSA already determined by the District Court / Respondent breached PSA by not paying rent during time the property was used by his family / Respondent and his agents caused damage to property / Compensation for economic loss arising from trespass not considered / Applicant entitled to compensation for rent and damage to property / Claim allowed.

  7. GB v B Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 604 (24 May 2024) [PDF, 95 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant was involved in road collision with Third Respondent, driving a vehicle owned by First Respondent (her employer) / Each party maintained the other was responsible for collision / Applicant claimed $7,137.97 for cost of repairs and bringing claim / First Respondent counterclaimed $10,327.38 for cost of repairs / Held: on balance of probabilities, Third Respondent was responsible for collision / Most probably Third Respondent turned out of a driveway into the path of an oncoming car, thereby causing the collision / Third Respondent was driving First Respondent’s vehicle as its employee / First Respondent vicariously liable for Third Respondent’s actions / Costs claimed by Applicant for repairs was reasonable / Costs for bringing claim unable to be awarded / First and Third Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $6,637.96 / Claim allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.  

  8. SN v ZX [2024] NZDT 313 (24 May 2024) [PDF, 85 KB]

    Contract / Interest / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant engaged by Respondent as an independent contractor for data entry work / Applicant filed claim against Respondent for $360.84, unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44 plus interest, damages for time pursuing payment, and filing fee / Unpaid sums since been paid / Applicant now claimed $840.00 in compensation for late payment, including interest, time spent and filing fee / Held: no contractual provision for interest in circumstances / DTA provided for interest to be ordered at Tribunal’s discretion / DTA does not allow for interest where debt was paid before hearing / Circumstances not met for costs to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

  9. TD Ltd v W Ltd [2024] NZDT 429 (23 May 2024) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased flooring product from Respondent for installation in tiny homes / Problems arose with flooring in three of ten homes / Respondent’s manufacturer declined to address issues under warranty due to moisture readings obtained in each location in excess of warranty tolerances / Applicant claimed there was a product defect and product descriptions were inaccurate and/or misleading / On a goodwill basis, Respondent offered replacement product and $7000 credit, which Applicant accepted, albeit having misunderstood wording of offer proposed / Held: parties reached a binding settlement / Necessary elements of a binding contract were present in the goodwill offer made by Respondent and acceptance by Applicant / No further claim by Applicant was possible / Claim dismissed.

  10. KN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 371 (23 May 2024) [PDF, 170 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took his mobile phone to Respondent for repair / Respondent said they would need to send phone away to be repaired, Applicant agreed / Months later, Respondent told Applicant that they could no longer contact the repair company / Respondent advised company may have gone into liquidation / Applicant did not hear anything further from Respondent and did not get his phone back / Applicant sought $350.00 from Respondent / Held: Respondent had obligation to ensure phone was kept safe while it was being repaired, even when sent to a third party / Phone was not returned to Applicant within reasonable time / Respondent had breached its obligations to Applicant / Applicant said value of a used phone of the same model and age as his phone was $350.00 / Applicant’s phone likely to have a lower value than phone in full working order / Respondent ordered to pay $300.00 / Claim allowed.

  11. KD v BN Ltd [2024] NZDT 348 (23 May 2024) [PDF, 92 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from supplier / Years later, vehicle was found to have an oil leak / Applicant advised to return it to supplier / Supplier assessed vehicle and quoted $2,599.55 to repair seal / Applicant considered that a four year old vehicle should not need a seal replacement and claimed vehicle was not of acceptable quality / Supplier since been removed from companies register / Applicant brought claim against Respondent, who she believed was standing in the shoes of the supplier / Held: Applicant needed to show link between supplier and Respondent, such that Respondent was responsible for guarantees / Insufficient evidence that Respondent purchased anything more than the supplier’s customer database / Applicant failed to show she was entitled to enforce guarantees against Respondent / Claim dismissed.

  12. DK Ltd v UT [2024] NZDT 338 (23 May 2024) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Contract / Quasi-contract / Applicant claimed he had an agreement with his mother to store some of her belongings for $50.00 per week / Applicant’s mother since passed away / Applicant claimed $13,167.50 for storage fees from Respondent, executor of Applicant’s mother’s estate / Held: insufficient evidence there was an agreement between Applicant and his mother for storage to be paid for / Insufficient evidence  there was objectively a reasonable expectation by Applicant that he would be compensated for storage / Claim for payment raised for the first time four years after alleged arrangement began / Claim dismissed.

  13. DN v NS [2024] NZDT 336 (23 May 2024) [PDF, 127 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was hit by Respondent’s vehicle at a roundabout / Applicant claimed $3,252.34 for damage caused and cost to hire a private investigator to obtain Respondent’s address / Held: Respondent was in lane designated for a right turn only, but turned left into Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Repair cost was $3,464.84 / Respondent had agreed to cost and made $500.00 payment / Respondent liable for balance of $2,964.84 / Respondent’s conduct in giving Applicant an incorrect address had delayed proceedings /  Applicant entitled to claim cost incurred of hiring private investigator ($287.50) so proceedings could be brought to Tribunal / Respondent ordered to pay $3,252.34 / Claim allowed.

  14. BI v NX [2024] NZDT 310 (22 May 2024) [PDF, 92 KB]

    Negligence / Respondent collided with Applicant’s parked car / Applicant’s car was towed and assessed as being uneconomic to repair / Applicant claimed $24,200.00 for loss of his car / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care not to drive in a manner that caused damage to another vehicle / Person who carelessly causes damage to another person’s car must pay cost of putting other person back in position they would have been in had damage not occurred / Applicant suffered loss of $23,000, $25,000.00 pre-accident value of car, less $2,000.00 Applicant received from selling car to wrecking company / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $23,000 / Claim allowed.

  15. DK v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 293 (22 May 2024) [PDF, 125 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased travel insurance policy from Respondent / While overseas, Applicant’s tooth broke / Applicant made travel insurance claim to cover cost of dental care / Claim declined / Applicant claimed $1,999.00 as contribution towards dental costs / Held: insurance contract stated dental treatment would be covered if it was for relief of sudden and acute pain, or as a result of damage to sound and natural teeth caused by injury / Applicant’s tooth broke during flossing after eating some nuts / Cause did not meet definition of injury in insurance policy but pain experienced was covered / No evidence to suggest affected tooth had deterioration or decay, therefore not excluded from cover / Respondent breached contract by declining Applicant’s claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

  16. N Ltd v DS [2024] NZDT 416 (21 May 2024) [PDF, 187 KB]

    Contract / Applicant leases premises from Respondent / Respondent invoiced Applicant for illegal billboard on building / Applicant claimed non-liability for invoice payment and sought an order that Respondent is liable to pay towards signage removal costs / Held: Applicant not liable to pay invoice because there is no basis in the lease for any charge for signage / No evidence parties reached an agreement for payment / Applicant agreed not to pursue contribution of costs claim from Respondent / Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $11,007.14 / Claim allowed.

  17. SB & IM v TO [2024] NZDT 414 (21 May 2024) [PDF, 187 KB]

    Immigration / Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicant referred to Respondent by a friend for assistance with partnership visa application / Applicant transferred $13,000 to Respondent for that assistance / Applicant claimed return of money due to no progress on immigration matters / Held: no evidence that Respondent provided assistance that was of any value or benefit to Applicant / Respondent not a licensed immigration adviser / Full refund with interest due / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,287.95 / Claim allowed.

  18. EB v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 328 (21 May 2024) [PDF, 98 KB]

    Insurance / Compensation / Applicant's house damaged by earthquake / Respondent was Applicant's insurer / Court of Appeal and High Court heard matters / Applicant and Respondent signed a deed of settlement / Applicant claimed Respondent has not dealt with him unfairly by not being honest in providing fair settlement / Applicant claimed $8,818.60 which is 10% of professional fees plus GST and 10% contingencies and interest since 2011 / Held: Applicant signed two settlement agreements with Respondent, each expressed to be full and final settlement of all existing or future claims / Applicant provided no evidence decision of court was misleading or deceptive / Claim struck out.

  19. LC Ltd v XU Ltd [2024] NZDT 356 (21 May 2024) [PDF, 177 KB]

    Negligence / Applicant attended Respondent’s site to carry out work / Applicant was directed to park in a particular spot while unloading their tools / While parked, a concrete aggregator inadvertently overloaded and spilt its content onto Applicant’s vehicle, causing damage / Applicant’s insurer claimed $7,776.07 for repair costs / At hearing, Respondent questioned whether Applicant had parked at the spot longer than it took them to unload tools / Held: Applicant was told where to park by Respondent’s manager / No specific timeframe for unloading tools was given / Respondent had duty of care to protect Applicant from foreseeable risks of harm / Duty was breached when aggregator was overloaded / Damage caused by the spillage of aggregate was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of overloading aggregator / Respondent liable for reasonable costs of repairing damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent order to pay $7,776.07 / Claim allowed.

  20. BU & OZ v TF Ltd [2024] NZDT 330 (21 May 2024) [PDF, 242 KB]

    Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a refrigerator with a chilled water dispenser from supplier / Applicants later noticed fridge would only dispense 2-3 glasses of chilled water after which only regular room temperature water was available / Technician confirmed this was usual and expected operation of water-dispensing function and not a defect / Applicants wished to keep fridge and obtain full refund of purchase price from Respondent (the manufacturer) / Held: refrigerator did not comply with description given, due to its limited capacity of chilled water, which should have been disclosed by sales assistant when the dispensing function was being discussed / As sales representative was acting as a servant or agent of the manufacturer when selling their goods, this was a failure of guarantee by the Respondent / Respondent ordered to refund 5% of purchase price ($133.95) to Applicants / Claim partially allowed.

  21. SO v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 450 (20 May 2024) [PDF, 174 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased electronic items on layby / Applicant claims most items were faulty / Applicant made a second purchase of a television / Television developed a fault and Applicant contacted supplier / Supplier agreed to replace television / Applicant moved to new address and provided this to the supplier / New television did not arrive / Held: a reasonable amount of time to remedy had expired by the time Applicant changed address / Applicant entitled to reject the television which he did by stopping payments / Supplier to refund $2,100.00 to Applicant / Claim allowed.

  22. XH v ND [2024] NZDT 300 (20 May 2024) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Contract / Applicant allowed Respondent to use his driveway to relocate a house onto Respondent’s section / Use was conditional on Respondent fixing any damage caused in move / Applicant claimed $12,132.00 due to a water pipe leak he claimed was caused by Respondent’s house movers / Parties agreed moving truck caused subsidence to Applicant’s driveway / Respondent promised to repair driveway but had not done so / Respondent submitted damage was independent of house move and he was not liable / Held: insufficient evidence to show causative link between truck using driveway and pipe leak / Leak was discovered months after house relocation / Subsidence issue occurred in part of driveway away from leaks / Applicant’s water bills indicated no increase in water usage shortly after house relocation / Applicant failed to prove Respondent’s use of driveway caused pipe damage / No breach of agreement / Claim dismissed.

  23. B Ltd v M Ltd [2024] NZDT 482 (17 May 2024) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Fraud / Business email compromise / Applicant invoiced the Respondent for $24,725.00 for demolition work / The invoice, sent via accounting software, stated the Applicant's bank account had changed / Respondent paid the invoice into what appeared to be the Applicant’s new account / The Applicant subsequently followed up with the Respondent who discovered the funds had been paid into a fraudulent account / The bank was only able to recover $3000 / The Applicant claimed invoice amount, interest, and an inconvenience fee / The Respondent argued the invoice had already been paid / Held: the law around this type of fraud is unclear and still developing / The loss should be shared equally / Respondent must pay the Applicant $10,863.00, half of the remaining invoice / Claim partially allowed.

  24. SM v KK [2024] NZDT 428 (17 May 2024) [PDF, 100 KB]

    Negligence / Parties were involved in a vehicle collision at a roundabout / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable because she failed to give way / Applicant claimed $10,287.80 for vehicle repairs / Respondent claimed Applicant was responsible because she had entered roundabout before Applicant and he was required to give way to her / Respondent also claimed Applicant did not indicate his intention to exit roundabout / Respondent counterclaimed $2,890.00 / Held: more likely than not that Applicant had entered intersection before Respondent / Respondent failed to give way to traffic / Respondent therefore did not take reasonable care to drive in a manner that does not cause harm to other road users / Applicant did exercise reasonable care when driving through roundabout / Respondent ordered to pay $10,287.80 / Claim allowed and counterclaimed dismissed.