Search Results

1. JB v BL [2025] NZDT 226 (11 June 2025) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...firstly he says BL did not install a new cylinder head, contrary to what was agreed. 11. Secondly, JB in effect claims that the failure of the engine alone, so relatively soon following the repair is itself a sign of the service not having been performed with reasonable care and skill. 12. I note that the refurbishment was carried out in May 2023. On the evidence before me, it is clear BL had advised JB to change the radiator too, but JB did not want to do so, being unable to affor...

2. QH Ltd v XD Ltd [2022] NZDT 98 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...(‘CCLA’)? • What is payable by XD Ltd, if anything, under the contract? Did XD Ltd accept the goods provided by QH Ltd as per the Sale of Goods provisions in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (‘CCLA’)? 9. As soon as the contract was formed, the boxes became the property of XD Ltd, irrespective of the arrangement to deliver some or all of the boxes at a later date (as per section 146 of the CCLA). 10. Section 170(1)(b) and (c) of the CCLA provides that:- �...

3. LCRO 9/2024 & 12/2024 QB v WF and SY & WF and SY v QB (27 June 2024) [pdf, 1.3 MB]

   ...is 28 August. [15] On , the employer gave each of the respondents another letter. This one, after confirming disestablishment of their roles and dealing with the non- availability of redeployment, relevantly stated as follows: At our meeting you requested and we agreed to waive the notice period and to allow you to finish on [date 1]. We also agreed that your final pay would be processed on [date 1]. You will be paid out all wages and holiday pay owing up to Friday [date 1], plus 4 w...

4. Soulsby v Accident Compensation Corporation (Weekly Compensation) [2024] NZACC 31 [pdf, 301 KB]

   ...February 2024 Held at: Auckland District Court Appearances: J Robinson for the Appellant F Becroft for the Accident Compensation Corporation (“the Corporation”) Judgment: 19 February 2024 RESERVED JUDGMENT OF JUDGE P R SPILLER [Claim for interest on weekly compensation - s 114(1), backdated weekly compensation – s 105, cl 43, Sch 1, alleged delay, s 134(1)(b), Accident Compensation Act 2001 (“the Act”)] Introduction [1] These are appeals from the follow...

5. [2018] NZEmpC 37 Edminstin v Sanford Ltd [pdf, 396 KB]

   ...applicant P Wicks QC and K Dunn, counsel for the defendant Judgment: 2 May 2018 JUDGMENT OF JUDGE K G SMITH - COSTS [1] On 6 June 2017, former Chief Judge Colgan delivered a judgment in proceedings by John Edminstin in which he claimed a compliance order against Sanford Limited. The case involved navigational records known as marks.1 Issues about ownership and use of the marks materialised from a dispute over interpreting a settlement agreement between Mr E...

6. AM and HM v TH and NH [2022] NZDT 69 (24 March 2022) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...months for a resolution, but were no further forwards. TH therefore would construct a fence on her land at her cost. She wanted her privacy restored and for HM and AM to stop coming onto her land. 7. After the fence was constructed, a neighbour informed TH that AM was spray painting her fence. Both the Police and the Council were called. The Council confirmed to HM and AM that the fence was inside TH’s boundary by having them tie a string line between the boundary pegs. 8. T...

7. TO Ltd v DD Ltd [2019] NZDT 1462 (11 December 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill and judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply. 5. With the proposal DD LTD provided a page entitled Conditions of Sale, and an information sheet on testing packaging and products. 6. The conditions of sale include a subheading “fit for purpose” which states: “we do not warrant the goods supplied to be compatible with any particular product or manufacturing

8. QH v KH [2020] NZDT 1467 (2 December 2020) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...currently work and it is not known exactly when it stopped working. It is shown working in the marketing photos for the property. In the emails presented, the pool light is noted to be functioning on 12 June, 4 days before settlement. By 3 July QH had informed the real estate agents that it was not working. There is no further evidence as to when it failed. For these reasons I find that it is not proven on the balance of probabilities that the light failed prior to settlement. Therefore,...

9. NT v BP Ltd [2022] NZDT 5 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...“unit” is defined as the whole pallet (s247(1)(c)(i)). 10. The liability of the respondent is therefore limited in this case to $2,000.00. Referee: J Robertshawe Date: 17 January 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 rehe...

10. KN v BT [2020] NZDT 1365 (9 December 2020) [pdf, 101 KB]

    ...further agreement regarding the driveway fence but no agreement was ever reached. Is BT liable to contribute to the cost of the driveway fence as claimed by KN? 9. Once no agreement was reached regarding the driveway fence, KN needed to issue a formal fencing notice to BT. This is required by section 10 of the Fencing Act 1978, and the Act details what is required to be specified in such a notice. 10. KN’s email to BT of 31 July 2020 contained 4 quotations as attachments an...