Search Results

1. HD v FT [2017] NZDT 1396 (20 March 2017) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...are reasonable as they have been approved by an assessor. 11. Accordingly FT is liable for the costs of repairs to HD’s car of $3,883.78. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 20 March 2017 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to apply...

2. GU Ltd v LN [2022] NZDT 59 (7 June 2022) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...a. What were the terms of the contract for hiring the scooters? b. Have those terms been breached? c. If so, what is the remedy? 3. LN did not attend the hearing. LN was phoned to join the hearing however the call did not connect. LN had informed the Registrar he would not be attending. The hearing proceeded without LN on the evidence presented in accordance with s42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA). What were the terms of the contract for hiring the scooters? 4. The

3. KT v BM [2021] NZDT 1571 (22 July 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...fee. The amount of statutory interest potentially payable is just over $3.00. In the circumstances I am not satisfied that an award is necessary or justified. Referee: J P Smith Date: 22 July 2021 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...

4. LN v K Ltd & EU [2023] NZDT 136 (6 June 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...collision. 3. Both parties provided evidence including photos of the damage to the vehicle, the clarity of the day, GPS and time data of the truck’s travel on that day from Eroad, a witness report, several photos of the road and google maps information. 4. JO, a director of K Ltd, told the Tribunal EU was not reversing and referred to the onboard record of Eroad/GPS data as confirmation EU was not reversing. 5. DB, a passenger in the truck, told the Tribunal they were on their...

5. NE & HE v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 154 (1 May 2023) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...employee of the company. That employee had apparent authority to bind the company, even if they did not have actual authority. That is sufficient to evidence an offer, which was accepted by signing and returning the document. The contract was therefore formed once that occurred, on 16 May 2022. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 8. The one-month delay in signing had arisen as the applicants had needed to obtain information about insurance and building issues, which took a few...

6. NC v GT Limited [2024] NZDT 39 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 210 KB]

   ...that was misleading or deceptive, or bait advertising, I do not need to consider this question. 12. For the above reasons the claim is dismissed. Referee: L Thompson Date: 26 February 2024 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 r...

7. AM v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 138 (21 March 2024) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...not by AM personally. c. No evidence has been provided to substantiate the claim for $4,000. 10. For these reasons the claim is dismissed. Referee: LK Whineray Date: 21 March 2024 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...

8. ZS & U Ltd v NU Ltd [2022] NZDT 73 (24 March 2022) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. ZS’s car was damaged. Repairs were arranged by her car dealership, KN, with the repairs undertaken by NU Ltd. 2. NU Ltd contacted KN about 3pm on Friday 17 September 2021, to inform them that the repairs had been completed and the car was ready for collection. KN advised ZS of that fact by text message. 3. As she was too busy to collect the car that afternoon, ZS left the vehicle at NU Ltd over the weekend. During...

9. KD & KX v B Ltd [2023] NZDT 533 (21 September 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...carriage are clear that it is the responsibility of the passenger to get to the departure gate on time. KX and KD accept this. 7. To comply with the guarantees under s.28 (CGA 1993), B Ltd had to take reasonable care to ensure that KX and KD were informed when the flight was departing. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 8. I find B Ltd did take reasonable steps to notify KX and KD about the updated departure time so that they could get to the gate on time. 9. I make thi...

10. AZ v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 268 (28 June 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

    ...the water damage as being due to a water leak that was gradual in nature. The report indicates that the damage was hidden, and that the insured should not have necessarily known about it earlier. The evidence presented is that the tenants did not inform S Ltd of the leak. However, in a later conversation with AZ they told her that they had noticed it around two months prior to moving out. 8. S Ltd’s inspection took place in late April 2022. The leak wasn’t noted then, and there is...