Search Results

1. BC v KG [2021] NZDT 1592 (4 August 2021) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...latter would be out of reasonable proportion to the quality breach. I consider the sum awarded meets the merits and justice of the dispute and order it above. Referee: J Costigan Date: 4 August 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...

2. NH v RA Trustees Ltd [2020] NZDT 1373 (11 November 2020) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...the parties met on site on 1 November 2019 to discuss the fence. As no agreement could be reached, NH forwarded a quotation from a fencing contractor for a replacement fence to RA Trustees Ltd on 1 February 2020 and referenced that quotation in the formal fencing notice she sent to them on 21 February 2020. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 3. RA Trustees Ltd replied to the fencing notice informally on 27 February via their property manager, re-stating their desire and off...

3. II & SC v FX [2022] NZDT 229 (19 July 2022) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...the Applicants decided not to proceed, the terms of the simple contract that they had with FX should have been implemented, that they were to be refunded the $8,000.00 as agreed. It was clear from the evidence that the Applicants kept FX as well informed as they could. FX simply “jumped the gun” in purchasing materials, without any contractual entitlement to do so. 8. FX alleges that the contract was cancelled for inappropriate reasons in that he had had a falling out with the Appl...

4. MS & NS v JT [2024] NZDT 238 (26 March 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...element of “consideration” cannot be returned to them. Therefore, Mr T will have to pay them (in addition to the $6,000.00) the cash equivalent of $1,500.00. Referee: J P Smith Date: 26 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...

5. NL & UN v ME [2022] NZDT 88 (8 June 2022) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...upon when bidding on the house. This report stated at page 15 that the concrete side wall of the carport was “structurally sound”. The following year a crack was identified in the wall and remedial work to stabilise the carport and the wall was performed. 2. NL and UN (the Applicants) claim $30,000.00 to repair the wall. 3. The issues to be determined are: a. Did ME exercise reasonable care and skill when he produced the pre-inspection report and was the report reasonably fi...

6. DX & QX v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 215 (27 April 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...to some degree, and had then sustained some static settlement over time. He did not consider that the degree of floor differential affected the structural integrity of the house, or made worse the likely CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 performance of the house and its foundations in the event of a significant earthquake. The second report, written by a representative of MT, stated that “.. we are of the opinion from a structural perspective that even though the foundation settlem...

7. JB v IQ [2023] NZDT 321 (12 July 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...an earlier rule on which rule 9.12 was based, namely reg 53 of the Traffic Regulations 1956. In Berrett v Smith [1965] NZLR 460, Hutchinson J held that reg 53 was designed to protect the purchaser, and that breach of reg 53 made the seller’s performance of the contract illegal, permitting the innocent purchaser to recover any amount paid in respect of the contract. On other hand, in Fenton v Scotty's Car Sales Ltd [1968] NZLR 929, Woodhouse J held that reg 53 was designed solely to...

8. SX v GO [2023] NZDT 686 (20 December 2023) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...that an equivalent replacement vehicle could have been obtained in the market for less than the $15,000.00 [Valuation Services] valued SX’s car at, I do not accept the $8500.00 figure put forward by GO. That is because one [online] ad, missing key information such as mileage and description, is not sufficient to prove that SX’s vehicle was uneconomic to repair at the cost of $9343.84. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 14. If the repair cost had been much closer to the for...

9. UH v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 45 (2 February 2024) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...why UH found that disappointing. Conclusion: 15. For all these reasons D Ltd is to pay UH $1,500.00 in accordance with the terms of this order. Referee: Malthus Date: 2 February 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 reh...

10. HL & UL v FZ [2024] NZDT 730 (5 December 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

    ...that repairs were reasonably competitively priced. 10. Accordingly, I find that FZ is liable for the cost of $4,684.81 as she caused the damage to the car. Referee: S Simmonds Date: 5 December 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...