Search Results

1. KT v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 731 (17 September 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...2. KT has claimed the insurance excess she paid and compensation for the loss of her possessions. She believes that U Ltd is liable for the losses under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provisions. She believes that she was not adequately informed by U Ltd of the danger of fuel escaping if the generator tipped over. She said that she understood from her previous generator instruction manual that it must always be stored in an upright position but did not understand that this was be

2. EX & OI v D Ltd & BD [2023] NZDT 648 (9 November 2023) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply. If not, did EX misrepresent the condition of the engine? 19. The law relevant to this claim is the general law of contract and the Contractual and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA). A contract is a binding commitment 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”. This implies that the buyer must be cautiou...

3. TD v KO [2021] NZDT 1684 (20 December 2021) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1684 APPLICANT TD RESPONDENT KO The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. DD is to remain in the possession of KO. Reasons: 1. TD claims her former neighbour, KO, gifted her a young cat named D on 8/6/2021 in the course of a telephone conversation. Following the conversation, TD took the cat to the vet, had him vaccinated and microchipped, renamed him P, and had a cat door installed....

4. WD v NU & OT [2024] NZDT 38 (25 January 2024) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...NU and OT liable to refund the bond in full. 13. NU and OT are therefore to pay WD 7 days rent of $240, plus the bond of $800, being a total of $1040. Referee: K. Edwards Date: 25 January 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 rehe...

5. T Ltd v WE [2024] NZDT 705 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...on 10 May 2023 as part of a ‘handshake’ agreement to purchase his cleaning business which had one client at that time, a childcare centre. 2. T Ltd started cleaning at the childcare centre on 1 June 2024, but says that WE did not properly inform the client of the change of ownership. They also claim that the business was not sold properly with respect to GST and other issues. They claim a refund of the $10,000.00 paid for the business as well as interest and other costs for a total...

6. LS v CC [2024] NZDT 773 (18 December 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...with BC who was CC’s father. 4. BC passed away and from March 2024 LS became a legal tenant after signing a tenancy agreement. 5. After BC passed away but before LS became a tenant, LS continued to live at the property on week by week informal basis. 6. During that period CC had a key and authority to enter the property to remove family items. 7. Because there was no money payout or single item of property valued at over $15,000.00 CC explained that he had been advised by...

7. Tucker v Real Estate Agents Authority [2020] NZHRRT 50 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...1894. [3] That backdrop provides the context for Mr Tucker’s claim to this Tribunal under the Privacy Act 1993. [4] Anticipating an adverse decision by the READT, on 20 September 2016 Mr Tucker emailed the Real Estate Agents Authority (REAA) requesting all information it held about him under the Privacy Act and the Official Information Act 1982. [5] On 22 September 2016 the REAA acknowledged receipt of Mr Tucker’s Privacy Act request. Mr Tucker was told that the response to t...

8. AGJ and AGK v ZVL [2013] NZDT 500 (18 December 2013) [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...FIRST APPLICANT AND AGK SECOND APPLICANT AND ZVL RESPONDENT Date of Order: 18 December 2013 Referee: Referee Costigan ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that the claim by AGJ and AGK is dismissed. AGJ and AGK are jointly and severally liable to pay ZVL the sum of $793.20 on or before 31 December 2013. Facts [1] AGJ and AGK live at 34 [place name street]. They say ZVL, their neighbour at 36 [pla...

9. Auckland City Council as Assignee v Russell [pdf, 126 KB]

   ...effectively a personal promotion by him of the services presented by the report and refers to an account for "my" fees. The only reference to the limited liability company other than in the letterhead is in the signature page at the end which forms part of the document headed "Land Information Summary". It could well have been misinterpreted as being a statement by the company of the summary of land information. The substance of the report itself which conclud...

10. KI & GI v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 152 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 226 KB]

    ...options, but his catalogue regards them as correct. UC says that KI tightened the nuts too much when he fitted the CV Joints, and this caused play in the bearings and resulted in the bearings collapsing. 11. Having carefully considered the available information and evidence, I find that KI and GI have proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the CV Joints were not reasonably fit for purpose, so the implied guarantee set out in s8 of the CGA was not complied with. I make this findin...