Search Results

1. HK Ltd v MO Ltd [2022] NZDT 120 (3 August 2022) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...not need to be addressed, and MO LTD is liable to pay the balance of the contract price. Once this is paid, HK LTD is to deliver the Type B shelves to MO LTD. Referee: J Perfect Date: 3 August 2022 Page 3 of 3 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 re...

2. PV v OS & B Ltd [2023] NZDT 172 (3 May 2023) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...panel beater to get the car fixed. PV refused and filed a claim with J Ltd. 5. The initial claim amount was for $4,670.03. I noted that the repairers’ invoice was for $3,962.53. At the hearing J Ltd said they neglected to include the rental information. They therefore deducted the rental charge from its claim. The claim amount is therefore $3,962.53. 6. OS and B Ltd are disputing liability. WS is the director and shareholder of B Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 T...

3. T v C Ltd v IQ & LQ [2023] NZDT 230 (18 September 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...hearing that this was a fair outcome and was no longer making any claim against IQ & LQ. Referee: Hannan DTR Date: 2 November 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...

4. CU Ltd v ZS & HC Ltd [2023] NZDT 588 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 272 KB]

   ...this, the applicant bears the burden of proof on the balance of probabilities (that is, that it is more likely than not). When assessing whether the onus of proof has been discharged by an applicant, I need to consider and evaluate the evidence and information presented by the parties. While I have carefully considered all the evidence and submissions from Page 2 of 4 the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision....

5. TD v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 414 (14 August 2023) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...first repair, she would have had the same answer as U Ltd gave at the hearing, which was that she caused the problem, and the motorhome was of acceptable quality. 13. TD did not lose her right to claim from U Ltd under the CGA because she informed U Ltd of a problem and U Ltd did not accept it had liability for repairs. What amount should be ordered? 14. I have ordered all the amounts claimed by TD except for the $350.00 for incidentals. I accept a friend helped out howe...

6. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...that by the time those inspections were undertaken, it is more reasonable that BM (and EM’s partner KM who accompanied BM) were more likely directly relying on their inspection and observations of how the vehicle looked and performed, rather than directly on KU’s earlier statement; g. for the avoidance of doubt I also do not accept on these facts that the provision of an A/C belt by KU (which is now acknowledged to be of the wrong type) was a representa

7. BI v O Inc [2024] NZDT 725 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

   ...not agree with what he describes as “a political narrative of oppressor/oppressed racist ideology.” He also takes issue with a number of public statements made by various members of the leadership of O Inc which he says expressed erroneous information and showed O Inc in a poor light. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. KT, the Chief Executive of O Inc, provided a different context for the comments BI complained about. He also stated that O Inc has the largest proporti...

8. E Ltd v XL [2024] NZDT 563 (9 July 2024) [pdf, 239 KB]

   ...of section 29 of the CGA by E Ltd. 24. Accordingly, I do not find that any further amount is payable to E Ltd. 25. The claim is, therefore, dismissed. Referee: S Malaviya Date: 9 July 2024 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 rehe...

9. LX v TO [2024] NZDT 903 (10 December 2024) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...accident, text messages between the parties show that TO advised LX, who was away in an area with poor mobile coverage, that [Horse] had had an accident and that they were on the way to the vet. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 5. She informed LX that the vet had given a cost estimate at the time of $3-$6,000.00, but that x- rays were needed to ascertain the full extent of the injury. 6. The text message evidence shows that LX replied, suggesting to TO that they wait un...

10. KK & PM v S Ltd & SH Ltd [2023] NZDT 43 (23 January 2023) [pdf, 265 KB]

    ...professional, despite black pipes being present and the house being constructed during the period when those pipes were used. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 7 13. KK and PM submitted that at the very least the report should have informed them of the possibility that some of the pipes may have been the original Dux Quest piping that was prone to splitting and leaking, both along the pipe and also at the joins. 14. EQ agreed that he would notify his client of the presenc...