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

1866 items matching your search terms

  1. BG v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 249 (16 May 2023) [PDF, 165 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant is professional piano teacher and brought digital piano from Respondent for business purposes / Over next 3 years, Applicant returned piano to Respondent numerous times to discuss complaints / Applicant identified 7 return trips from her home to Respondent / Applicant claimed $1,812.00 for cost of travel, as well back therapist costs as she suffered injury carrying piano  / Held: on only one occasion was there breach of guarantee as to fitness for purpose or acceptable quality / Piano was returned in functional state and remains so today / Personal injury claim is exclusively for ACC / Costs for two return trips is allowed / Respondent must pay Applicant $78.98 / Claim partially granted.

  2. N Ltd v TT [2023] NZDT 224 (16 May 2023) [PDF, 91 KB]

    Res judicata / Applicant brought action against Respondent / Matter had already come before Tribunal a year earlier / Applicant did not attend earlier hearing, matter was dismissed / Applicant had not been able to attend earlier hearing for medical reasons, therefore claimed matter had not been heard / Held: parties cannot relitigate questions that have already been judicially determined / Matter had already been heard and Applicant had not applied for re-hearing / Claim struck out.

  3. J Ltd v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 315 (15 May 2023) [PDF, 109 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to transport two consignments of planks / Respondent delivered one consignment, comprising three packets of planks, to wrong recipient / Recipient used two packets before realising error and returning third packet / Missing packets had to be replaced by Applicant for intended recipient / Applicant claimed $23,585.34 compensation / Held: contract between parties was contract of limited carrier liability / Goods went missing while Respondent responsible for them / Respondent liable for missing goods / In contracts of limited carrier liability, the legislation limited liability to $2000 per unit of goods damaged / Applicant entitled to $2000 for each packet delivered in error by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4000 / Claim allowed.

  4. BW v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 208 (12 May 2023) [PDF, 180 KB]

    Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contacted Respondent regarding services they could provide regarding black mould removal / Applicant claims she did not receive a scope of work or a quote / Applicant notes Respondent did not recommend a registered building surveyor to carry out inspection services / Respondent claims that it was made clear to Applicant that she would not receive a report of scope and costings / Applicant has claimed breach of care and skill / Held: Applicant did not prove that Respondent had breached care and skill in carrying out a maintenance survey / Contract was not breached regarding house inspection / Claim and counter claim dismissed.

  5. DT v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 225 (12 May 2023) [PDF, 169 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent for drainage services in 2019, paid $17,720.36 for work / Services were to redo work done by previous team after Applicant noticed water seepage into home / Heavy rain in 2022 caused flooding into Applicant’s home / Applicant claimed flooding was result of Respondent’s work, sought $20,000 compensation / Held: more likely than not that Respondent’s work was not cause of flooding / Respondent’s work done with reasonable care and skill, but Respondent should have done more to check work of previous team / Applicant did not give Respondent reasonable opportunity to remedy issue / Claim dismissed.

  6. DX & NS v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 157 (12 May 2023) [PDF, 214 KB]

    Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased property from Respondent / Applicant were told property had gas cooktop and gas hot water system but these were electric upon visit by Applicant / Applicant claimed damages for misrepresentation / Held: there was misleading representation made by Respondent through its agent / Representation induced Applicant's entry into contract / Respondent liable to pay damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $24,722.70 / Claim allowed.

  7. V Ltd v BT [2023] NZDT 370 (11 May 2023) [PDF, 133 KB]

    Contract / Applicant hired Respondent to provide financial advice / Commission paid to Respondent if sales were made / If clients cancelled their policies Respondent’s commission was clawed back / Clawed back commission would be paid to Applicant's instead / A number of Respondent’s clients have cancelled resulting in claw back amounts being charged to Applicant / Applicant claimed $26,318.75 / Held: Respondent agreed to claw back terms through implied consent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $26,318.75 / Claim allowed.

  8. BT v US [2023] NZDT 112 (11 May 2023) [PDF, 111 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to provide food platters, drinks, and bar services for Applicant’s wedding for $2,000.00 / Respondent experienced resourcing and illness issues / Many of the agreed services and resources were not provided by Respondent / Applicant claimed refund of $1,500.00 from Respondent alleged that she failed to provide services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent counterclaimed $3,500.00 for stress, online slander and derogatory comments she alleged were made by Applicant resulting in loss of work / Held: Respondent did not carry out her services with reasonable care and skill / Despite issues, responsibility of Respondent to ensure she could provide promised services / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear claim for stress, slander and derogatory comments / Claim granted and counterclaim dismissed.

  9. SM v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 155 (10 May 2023) [PDF, 229 KB]

    Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to repair leaking deck / Following repair, water ingress occurred to two of Applicant's downstairs bedrooms / Applicant claimed uninsured losses totalling to $30,000 / Held: Respondent failed to carry out its service with reasonable care and skill / Respondent's failure of guarantee of reasonable care and skill was of substantial character / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $28,569.28 and Applicant's Insurer $1,430.72 / Claim allowed.

  10. LF & SF v EG Ltd [2023] NZDT 135 (10 May 2023) [PDF, 135 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought outdoor chairs from Respondent / Applicant sent chairs to Respondent for physical warranty assessment due to signs of deterioration / Respondent declined warranty claim as damage was deemed to be wear and tear / Applicant claimed refund / Held: chairs failed to meet acceptable quality standards / Applicant entitled to reject goods and claim refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $17,145.60 / Claim allowed.

  11. KQ v UN [2023] NZDT 127 (10 May 2023) [PDF, 104 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought dog from Respondent / Dog diagnosed with medical condition / Applicant claimed compensation for past, ongoing and expected veterinary costs and reimbursement of $3,000 purchase price / Held: dog sold by Respondent not of acceptable quality / Parties agreed dog was worth $1,000 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,300, dog's value and reimbursement for vet invoices / Claim allowed in part.

  12. OO v Q Ltd and T Ltd [2023] NZDT 231 (6 May 2023) [PDF, 195 KB]

    Contract / Applicant purchased laptop from first respondent / Laptop developed problem with motherboard / Repaired under warrantee but developed further problems and declared unrepairable / Second respondent advised applicant to seek refund from first respondent / First respondent told applicant to get refund from second respondent / Applicant’s contract was with first respondent / Accepted that laptop beyond repair / Applicant entitled to refund / Claim allowed, first respondent to pay applicant $1985.61

  13. IF v EX [2023] NZDT 217 (5 May 2023) [PDF, 176 KB]

    Contract / Applicant sublet a room to Respondent for a fixed term / Respondent moved out six weeks early / Respondent allowed Applicant to keep his bond for rent / After he left, it took Applicant several months to find another flatmate / Applicant claimed $9,000.00 for rent and utilities / Held: Respondent liable for the rent for whole fixed term / Respondent breached contract by leaving early and stopping paying rent / Applicant could potentially have reduced losses by trying to find a suitable replacement flatmate / Applicant also had an obligation to mitigate losses / Not accepted that a flatmate could not reasonably have been found in less than 22 weeks / Six weeks after Respondent left a reasonable time period to find a new flatmate / Respondent liable for outstanding rent and utilities/expenses totalling $2,217.00 minus Respondent’s bond $460.00/ Respondent ordered to pay $1,757.000 / Claim allowed.

  14. TO & TA v MB [2023] NZDT 232 (5 May 2023) [PDF, 106 KB]

    Compensation / Montreal Convention 1999 / Airline liability / Applicant booked tickets from Respondent / Applicant's flight cancelled / Applicant's luggage went missing and two luggages were found with significant water damage / Applicant claimed $25,953 compensation / Held: Applicant entitled to $2,139.54 under Montreal Convention / Montreal Convention has limits to compensation claim / Each Applicant entitled to $640 in compensation for delay / Respondent ordered to pay First Applicant $2,779.54 and Second Applicant $640 / Claim allowed in part.

  15. HE v QZ [2023] NZDT 373 (4 May 2023) [PDF, 222 KB]

    Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent for building work / Respondent’s work to cost $50,000 / Respondent carried out work, but left site following changes to building plans by Applicant’s architect / Applicant had paid Respondent around $25,000 / Applicant claimed refund of various payments made to Respondent, plus $31,625.40 for cost of ‘remedial work’ by another building company / Held: Applicant provided insufficient evidence regarding two claims for refunds, did not prove loss regarding third / Cost paid to later building company was not to remedy Respondent’s work, but to complete build / Build completed on plans materially different to those Respondent had quoted on / Although Applicant paid more for build than original contract, had not proven loss / Claim dismissed.

  16. SN v CU & KU [2023] NZDT 167 (4 May 2023) [PDF, 160 KB]

    Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Applicant engaged contractor to build boundary fence on rural property / Applicant claims $8,682.00 from neighbouring Respondents / Held: Fencing work failed to comply with s 10 of the FA / Respondents had objected to quote via cross notice / Fact that Applicant wanted to plant new seedlings and could not wait did not mean s 16 of the FA could be invoked / Respondents not liable to share fencing cost / Claim dismissed.

  17. UX v TT [2023] NZDT 151 (4 May 2023) [PDF, 131 KB]

    Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought puppies from Respondent / Applicant believed deposit was refundable as per advert / Applicant withdrew purchase, but Respondent refused to refund deposit, claiming advert had error / Applicant claimed $500 for deposit and $45 for tribunal fee / Held: contract included an express term that deposit was refundable, as per advert / Tribunal fee unable to be awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $500 / Claim allowed.

  18. ES v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 218 (3 May 2023) [PDF, 93 KB]

    Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Ongoing engine problems began 6 months after purchase / Applicant returned to Respondent numerous times to resolve issues, eventually asked for refund / Respondent did not give refund, offered to replace engine / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price / Held: car was not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose / Applicant entitled to reject car and receive refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,500.00 / Claim allowed.