Search Results

1. ME v KT & EN [2024] NZDT 821 (7 October 2024) [pdf, 156 KB]

   ...they carried out remedial work and heard no more. • ME did not approach them about any issues until after she did the work and requested they pay her $15,000 towards the cost. • The changes ME made were because she was changing the usage form residential to commercial. • The drain cover on the driveway must have been installed in 1999, before they bought the property. • They engaged a drainlayer to move the water tank and were issued a PS3 so assumed whatever was...

2. DG v CM [2024] NZDT 207 (7 February 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...prior to the sale and advised that the car should not be driven as further damage could be caused and it was unsafe. [Mechanic workshop] owner KI confirmed in writing that the invoice had been modified from the original, and that CM had also been informed verbally that the issue made the car both liable to further damage if driven with the fault unrepaired, and unsafe to drive. 8. Issue: Did CM misrepresent the condition of the car to DG, thereby inducing DG to enter the contract...

3. LD v BD Ltd & BT Ltd [2023] NZDT 560 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...truck and load. [5] LD is clear in his evidence that he was never told of any possible damage to his driveway, that there was no site visit before delivery, and he was not provided with a written contact. He does admit however that he received information via email and had telephone conversations with a salesperson from BT Ltd about delivery method. LD also admits that because the delivery was in October 2021, he cannot be sure a site visit did not take place before delivery, but he is su...

4. DQ v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 642 (9 September 2024) [pdf, 172 KB]

   ...RESPONDENT C Ltd T/A EN The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. DQ bought a [petrol car] from EN in November 2021. In June 2024 DQ’s car broke down. He received roadside assistance from U Ltd who informed him the current battery installed in the car was incorrect and was for a [hybrid car] and not for a petrol car. 2. DQ claims he was sold a car with a battery that was not fit for purpose and now claims in the Disputes Tribunal for $757...

5. Mayfair Street Units v Spargo [pdf, 323 KB]

   Page | 1 IN THE WEATHERTIGHT HOMES TRIBUNAL TRI 2009-101-15 and 18 BETWEEN DAVID ALFRED FRANKLIN and DIANE HOLROYD FRANKLIN – Claimants in TRI 2009- 101-15 AND NGAIRE ANN SHERWIN and HTT 2003 LIMITED AS TRUSTEES OF THE KEREOPA WHANAU TRUST– Claimants in TRI 2009-101-18 – known as MAYFAIR STREET UNITS Claimants AND LYNN and MERLYN SPARGO First Respondents AND NORFOLK HOMES LIMITED Second Respondent AND LINDSAY MACK Third Respondent AND GIANNE MARCHE

6. [2016] NZEmpC 27 Henderson v Nelson Marlborough DHB [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...21 December 2015, and that to proceed in any other way was “game-playing”. She also said that “the Ministry recognises email transmission as being an acceptable mode of service of documents.” [9] On 2 February 2016, as a result of a request from the Registry as to when a statement of defence would be filed, Mr McBride advised that the defendant was not aware of “service being effected to date”. [10] This resulted in Ms Sharma filing a memorandum with the Court, in w...

7. O Ltd v Z Ltd [2024] NZDT 859 (2 October 2024) [pdf, 154 KB]

   ...23. KI said that when AZ rang him on 20 November, he asked AZ how long the chickens had been without food. AZ told him that he thought it had been a day, but he was not sure. 24. KI argues that this amounted to a representation by AZ that formed part of their contract and that he “agreed to picking up the birds the next evening 21st November on the condition that the birds had not been without feed for more than 12 hours”. 25. AZ agreed that he said to KI that he did not

8. [2024] NZEmpC 44 Maheta v Skybus New Zealand Ltd [pdf, 266 KB]

   ...September 2020, through its counsel, in a letter addressing each of those categories. In some cases the response stated the documents sought had already been supplied, in others that what was asked for never existed or no longer existed, and some requests were rejected as irrelevant. The defendant did not formally object to the notice requiring disclosure. [9] Matters rested there until 20 June 2023 when the plaintiff applied for an order that the defendant comply with its disclo...

9. ET v EF Ltd [2023] NZDT 567 (26 November 2023) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...ET’s project in [Location]. 2. An estimate of costs for a standard project was provided and a deposit of $1,552.50 was paid to EF Ltd in December 2022. An initial draft of plan was provided in February 2023. There were modifications to the plan requested by ET that resulted in EF Ltd requesting an adjustment to the original estimate of fees. 3. In April, ET sought to cancel the contract and seek a refund of the deposit paid as well as interest of a bank loan for 6 months among...

10. Gibbons v Armour Guard [2018] NZHRRT 10 [pdf, 247 KB]

    ...Anderson (General Manager) Mr S Morgan (National Risk Manager) and Mr J Harnett (National Key Account Manager) for Armour Guard DATE OF HEARING: heard on the papers DATE OF DECISION: 29 March 2018 DECISION OF TRIBUNAL STRIKING OUT CLAIM AGAINST ARMOUR GUARD1 [1] In February 2015, an incident occurred at the Paeroa WINZ office which resulted in Mr Gibbons receiving a criminal conviction. Ms Thurgood, an Armour Guard employee,