Search Results

1. BD v H Ltd [2024] NZDT 350 (7 March 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...During the course of some of the work, BD acknowledged he was working at home, and he would have observed the expansive nature of the work. 14. HB says he occasionally discussed with the applicant about what was happening, and at some point informed the applicant that he would likely have a legal case against the previous owner for failing to disclose the broken septic system when the house was sold. 15. HB says as the work progressed and in discussions with the applicant, he also r...

2. [2007] NZEmpC AC 8B/07 Blaker v B & D Doors (NZ) Ltd [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...the material to the scrap dealer and then showed me the cash that he had received. Julian would not tell me who the other employee was until I said we know Henry Henry put the material in the trailer. Julian then confirmed it was Henry who requested Julian to take the material and also his intention was to give Henry the cash. I asked Julian if we could discuss this with Henry at 11:30 on Thursday morning which was acceptable he replied. Wednesday 7 December approx 2:45pm...

3. SX v Q Ltd & TY [2024] NZDT 239 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...management company but Q Ltd repeatedly failed/refused to do so. 14. The day before the first hearing on 5 October 2023, Q Ltd made a substantial written submission, which included multiple inspection reports that SX had never seen before, in a format inconsistent with previous reports. 15. SX files this claim seeking $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract. 16. TY was joined as a second Respondent after the first hearing d...

4. LN & TN v TT Ltd [2024] NZDT 152 (1 March 2024) [pdf, 206 KB]

   ...5. The Applicant bears the burden of proof on a 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 the parties, I have only addressed the evidence and arguments to the extent necessary to explain my decision. Whether the service was

5. CK & NK v BG & HG [2023] NZDT 40 (19 October 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...and NK’s objections, I joined HG as a second respondent, with BG and HG’s consent and at their request. 3. The parties both owned flats next door to each other that were the subject of a cross-lease. CK and NK proposed to BG and HG that they formally update the cross-lease situation to improve the situation for buyers, as CK and NK’s were selling their flat, to which BG and HG agreed. CK and NK said BG and HG agreed to pay half the cost of legal and surveying and other fees invo...

6. KQ v UN [2023] NZDT 127 (10 May 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...factor is the respondent’s ‘offer’ of a refund subject to this dog being returned, and re-homed. That is something the applicant rejects (he wants to keep the dog, but get his money back) obviously because of the emotional attachment that has formed. When a good supplied is an animal, the blunt, possibly even harsh, reality is that it is open to the owner of that good to, so to speak, draw a line under the prospect of continuing costs. If an owner of an animal chooses not to do that,...

7. KA v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 297 (31 July 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...cosmetic work. However, the parties had in fact reached an agreement about price, and KA had already received the report, by the time that he paid the $2,500.00. PI had agreed to do his best to ‘tidy up’ the cosmetic issues, but PI had already informed KA that he would not put that commitment in writing because it would not be possible to accurately state what standard L Ltd was obliged to bring the vehicle to. d. It is not proven that PI ‘pressured’ KA into paying the depo...

8. NS v BX [2024] NZDT 787 (14 August 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...sale, and as reflected in the sale price negotiated/ accepted… Both parties agree that BX did provide NS with a copy of the invoice from [Mechanic 1] who carried out the gear box replacement. However, the parties disagreed on whether NS was informed prior to the purchase that the car had been returned to [Mechanic 1] for a period of five months due to issues with the gear box. BX admitted during the hearing, that [Mechanic 1] advised him that during the five month period the gear b...

9. FU v IX [2024] NZDT 527 (2 August 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...Conclusion 15. In light of these findings, it is not possible to address the final issue of compensation for the applicant, and the claim must be dismissed. Referee: J Robertshawe Date: 2 August 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...

10. QW v DI [2024] NZDT 468 (18 June 2024) [pdf, 182 KB]

    ...rather than being intentional, because s 35 includes innocent misrepresentations. However, the difference might not be all that significant given that the car had done nearly 197,000 km at the time of sale. 9. More importantly, I consider that the former statement qualified as a misrepresentation because it was only partly true, and omitted important information about the most recent service, which was in January 2023. The courts have held that that a half-truth, which is literally true...