Search Results

1. SX v TO [2022] NZDT 43 (21 March 2022) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...warranties or trading protection (for example, the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 or the Fair Trading Act 1986). 4. The law relevant to this claim is the general law of contract and the Contract and Commercial Law 2017. A contract is a binding agreement formed by an offer made by one party and a subsequent acceptance by the other party. There is a well-known principle of contract law which is “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware”. The general position is that the buyer must be...

2. CI v LU [2023] NZDT 786 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...into it by a misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, made to that party by or on behalf of another party to the contract. In law, a misrepresentation is a false statement of past or present fact. 7. The contract between the parties was formed when the auction closed with the buyer as the highest bidder. The buyer suggested that the point of sale was 23 May on the basis that the auction contract lapsed due to being conditional on the warrant being passed. However, the conditi...

3. [2022] NZACC 180 — Coldrick v ACC (20 September 2022) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...Compensation Act 2001] Introduction [1] This is an appeal from the ruling of a Reviewer dated 14 April 2022. The Reviewer issued a procedural ruling in relation to Fulton Hogan’s decision dated 10 November 2021 declining Mr’s Coldrick’s request for physiotherapy. Background [2] On 25 February 2020, Mr Coldrick twisted his right knee while standing on a boulder at work. His GP, Dr McGuire, lodged a claim for cover for a sprain of the right knee/leg. On 27 March 2020, th...

4. Ashworth v Kent (Strike-Out Application) [2018] NZHRRT 55 [pdf, 475 KB]

   ...Kent and [the RN] have differing recollections of whether a cross- checking procedure occurred. 3. Dr Kent stated that he stopped and took some time to consider what to do, before talking to Mrs Ashworth about it. Dr Kent told HDC that he then informed Mrs Ashworth of the options available to her, and believed he obtained her consent to proceed with the KAMRA inlay in her left eye. Dr Kent then inserted the KAMRA inlay into her left eye. [8] The Commissioner found Dr Kent breached the...

5. UW v XG Ltd [2024] NZDT 161 (16 April 2024) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...compensation for the expense of making the gate, and also now has the gate in its possession. 27. For these reasons both the claim and the counterclaim are dismissed. Referee: L Trevelyan Date: 16 April 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 f...

6. CI v KH Ltd [2024] NZDT 486 (18 June 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...with little rain and so it wouldn’t have known if the roof hadn’t been repaired properly. However he did not have any weather records to support this assertion which seems unlikely over a [Region] winter, and so in the absence of supporting information the rain records from [regional council] were looked up online during the hearing. While I appreciate that the records from [road] will not be exactly the same rainfall as that experienced at [property address], they are sufficiently cl...

7. HN v OB & G Ltd & I Ltd [2025] NZDT 120 (25 February 2025) [pdf, 139 KB]

   ...strong vibration” during the house demolition process. They were required to vacate during the tree felling, so cannot say what level of vibration occurred. 8. On 28 November 2022, HN noticed cracks on the kitchen ceiling along the line of the former wall. He notified the JV, and a member of the team came to inspect the property. HN says he told the representative that he did not expect the ceiling to be repaired until construction work was completed. He believes the JV accept...

8. S Ltd v NG [2023] NZDT 669 (23 November 2023) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...now seeks a refund of the $1,837.35 paid to her. 2. S Ltd’s claim was originally filed against NG, but N Ltd was joined as second respondent at the previous hearing since its name was used on the invoices. However, N Ltd’s representative ND informed the Tribunal and confirmed in the hearing that NG has no connection with that company and is unknown to ND. NG was the director of a company named NGD Ltd that was removed from the Companies Register in 2021. The correct respondent is the...

9. [2021] NZACC 146 – Buis v ACC (28 September 2021) [pdf, 248 KB]

   ...with Mr Buis that the “all information necessary” date should be the date of the Accident Compensation Appeal Authority’s review decision in Lewis7 which moved the date to 13 July 1992. [9] On 28 April 2017 Mr Buis wrote to the respondent requesting that it reconsider his entitlement to interest on the arrears ERC that had been paid to him in December 2006. His position was that interest on the payment should be calculated under the original s 72 (“the original s 72”) of...

10. SW on behalf of COMPANY 1 v RG, OL and HJ LCRO 130/2014 (3 November 2016) [pdf, 105 KB]

    ...that regrettable delay. 2 Background [3] The director of Company 1, Mr VL, instructed Law Firm 1 to act on the purchase of a commercial fishing vessel. Approximately two months later the boat was stolen, apparently by another party claiming ownership of the vessel. [4] Mr RG took steps in the District Court to remedy the situation and an agreement was reached about ownership. However Maritime New Zealand indicated that a High Court order was needed to amend the Registe...