Search Results

1. ET v CN [2023] NZDT 115 (23 March 2023) [pdf, 237 KB]

   ...disputed, CN stated ET had told him she had been on the roof. NL from [Repair shop] stated it is possible the cause of the hollow, where water pools, could be due to someone sitting or standing on the roof. 10. Evidence has been presented, in the form of a video, to show the skylight did leak on the 13th of May, however texts at that time indicate the problem was due to the skylight not being shut properly. There is no evidence of a leak being mentioned again until the caravan was seen...

2. EX v QU [2023] NZDT 457 (18 August 2023) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...lawn or the cracking of the concrete. 23. I find that the parties cannot claim costs against each other. Referee: Verdun Tawhara Date: 18th day of August 2023. Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

3. UD v ST & NT [2024] NZDT 726 (5 November 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...27. ST and NT have not proven that UD was negligent. 28. Accordingly, UD is not liable for a replacement engine. Is UD entitled to reimbursement of the towing expense? 29. UD incurred an unexpected expense as the result of not being informed of the issues with the vehicle. 30. UD acted in good faith to take care of ST and NT vehicle and get it home safely and at a reasonable expense. 31. UD had the benefit of using ST and NT vehicle during the 3 week stay and fuel, ma...

4. KD & SB v W Ltd [2024] NZDT 894 (19 December 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...within an acceptable range. 12. The respondent’s position is that the moisture ingress would have occurred while the boards were stored in the storage container on site as it was a particularly hot and wet summer. The respondent has also been informed that often telegraphing does not become apparent until the floorboards are laid due to the pressure on the boards. At the hearing the employee who opened the box said that only one board had a very slight sign of rippling. In terms of t...

5. DN v MH & WH [2024] NZDT 664 (8 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...says there is not an adequate fence must either: a. come to an agreement with the adjoining occupier about the fence; or Page 2 of 4 b. follow a process under section 10 of the FA by giving a s10 notice and providing sufficient information to the other occupier about both the proposed fence, and the process for serving a cross-notice if the other occupier does not agree with the fence. 6. I find no agreement has been made between the parties to erect the fence....

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

   ...price or fixed as to the specified hourly rate charged for however long the job took? 4. When two parties reach agreement about an exchange for value, for example, the provision of services in exchange for money, a legally binding contract is formed. The terms of the contract are those about which there is evidence of agreement from the parties’ actions and words, written or unwritten. 5. There were two quote documents referred to in the hearing. The first was not accepted b...

7. C Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 453 (11 June 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...business. Is C Ltd entitled to claim compensation of $30,000.00? 7. For a wronged party to be entitled to damages for misrepresentation under s35(1)(a) of the CCL, they must prove that the representation was made to them prior to the contract being formed; the representation induced them to enter into the contract; the representation turned out to be incorrect; and loss was suffered as a result. 8. Sales were so poor that the business had to cease trading. As company director, Mr...

8. SD v W Ltd & X Ltd [2023] NZDT 407 (22 August 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...these reasons I find the correct respondent to this claim is X Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 Is X Ltd in breach of its obligations to refund SD? 6. The relevant law is the law of contract. In this situation the contract was formed between SD (through his agent, [Travel Agent]) and X Ltd by way of the purchase of airline tickets. 7. SD states he outlaid $2231.75 for return flights from [City 2] to [Country]; leaving [City 2] 2 May 2020 and returning 8 May 202...

9. CG & NA v YA [2024] NZDT 695 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...well as provide general support for the mother. YA was to be paid $380 per day for the ‘maternity matron’ services. 2. The agreement was for YA to provide the ‘maternity matron’ service 24 hours a day. However, due to family issues YA informed CG and NA she could no longer do the night shift or start on the day agreed. 3. CG and NA claim YA breached the contract and claim in the Disputes Tribunal for the refund of the bond, postpartum meal costs incurred and the Tribunal fi...

10. Turner v Auckland Council [2012] NZWHT Auckland 36 [pdf, 327 KB]

    ...Mr Paykel gave evidence that the Harditex cladding should have been installed prior to the fascia. He attributed responsibility to the Harditex installer who should have either had the fascia removed before putting the Harditex in place or requested the roofer to return to remediate the flashing to protect the junction. I accept this evidence. [16] The defect resulted in decay to the framing below and adjoining return walls and led to the need to re-clad the affected wal...