Search Results

1. CL v BK [2021] NZDT 1612 (9 August 2021) [pdf, 225 KB]

   ...except in certain very limited circumstances, none of which apply in this instance (section 42, Disputes Tribunal Act 1988). 30. BK is to pay CL $2,000.00. Referee: N Blake Date: 9 August 2021 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 reh...

2. BN v AW [2020] NZDT 1480 (8 October 2020) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...timber fence. However, the purpose of the fence at the time it was built would have been to demarcate the boundary, and to contain small children and dogs (being those that would not leap a 1.1m fence). A fence at that height would not provide a form of security, but regardless of the height, anyone could enter off the street. The fence also does not provide much of a visual screen, being low by modern standards, but the fence at the time was in keeping with the surrounding area and was...

3. ZG Ltd v C Ltd [2019] NZDT 1506 (12 September 2019) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...truthfulness of the Customer’s … statements….” 2. In January 2018, C Ltd applied via ZG’s Online Application Centre to finance the sale of a car to WS. On 17 January 2018, ZG returned the result “Approved with no recourse. Based on information supplied, subject to due diligence and the terms of your dealer agreement” and subject to a list of conditions including provision of specific information and documents. On Monday 22 January, ZG could not contact Mr WS’s employer du...

4. VN v SC Ltd [2022] NZDT 240 (23 November 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...VN and SC Ltd? (b) Did SC Ltd fail to complete its obligations under the contract? (c) Is SC Ltd liable to pay VN all or any part of the amount claimed of $6,000.00? What were the terms of the contract between VN and SC Ltd? 4. A contract is formed when there is offer and acceptance, there is consideration from both parties, and the parties intend to be legally bound. The rights and obligations of each party arising under the contract are set out in the terms of the contract. 5. VN�...

5. KP v MN [2023] NZDT 776 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...owner, but was unable to do so according to [the insurer]. The parties reached an agreement that MN would compensate KP $100.00 for the loss of the warranty. At this time, KP asked MN if any major repairs had been carried out on the car. MN then informed KP that there had been an engine coolant issue that was repaired 10 days before the sale. On 2 June 2023, when KP was driving the car to the post shop, the engine coolant lights went on and started to ‘beep’. The car was towed to...

6. NX v T Ltd & S Ltd [2024] NZDT 234 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...tap was likely $120.00. T Ltd and S Ltd are jointly liable to NX for this cost. 22. Therefore, T Ltd and S Ltd are to pay NX $120.00 by Friday 29 March 2024. Referee: C Price Date: 8 March 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...

7. UI & II v SG [2024] NZDT 224 (6 March 2024) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...the time as being 9 years old , based on them having bought the property 8 years before, and ‘it seeming quite new at the time’. SG has provided evidence from neighbours about the age of the driveway. This included a written statement from the former owner of one of his properties, Mr L, who lived at [property 1] for over 25 years, who stated that in the time he had CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 lived there, up until 2021, “I do not recall seeing any major alterations to t...

8. XD v KA [2023] NZDT 348 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...address to the Tribunal but did give an email address. 6. An adjournment was granted on the basis that BX said he was on a plane preparing to fly to China. Subsequently, the telephone line dropped out. It was clearly necessary to gather more information about the respondent. 7. A further hearing was held on 8 June 2023. At that hearing BX again answered the telephone. At this hearing he said that although he knew KA and was involved in the transaction when XD bought the fish b...

9. LA v KD [2023] NZDT 260 (8 June 2023) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...than not either. 18. Given that I am unable to make a finding that KD’s driving caused or contributed to the collision the claim must be dismissed. Referee: L Trevelyan Date: 8 June 2923 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 r...

10. MQ v X Ltd & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 72 (19 February 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

    ...interior of the vehicle? 21. Part of MQ’s claim is the cost of cleaning the vehicle to remove the substantial amount of dust that was in the interior when he collected it. MQ also submitted that there was paint overspray on the interior. 1 Formerly the Carriage of Goods Act 1979, now sections 241-295 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) 2 Section 273(1)(a) CCLA CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 22. Mr S (X Ltd) acknowledged that there was dust i...