Search Results

1. [2024] NZLVT 023 - YMCA North Inc v Auckland Council (1 May 2024) [pdf, 415 KB]

   ...valuation, there was no evidence of any betterment and his evidence was a “major and unnecessary distraction”.4 YMCA submits there are no special reasons that would disentitle it to costs under s 90(3) PWA. YMCA accepts that the amount claimed was higher than what was ultimately awarded. However, YMCA submits the amount claimed was not unreasonably high having regard to the compensation awarded or the evidence before the Tribunal. There was no comparable market evidence f...

2. 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

3. 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,

4. 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...

5. 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...

6. 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...

7. DC v JBD Ltd [2021] NZDT 1379 (11 March 2021) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...APPLICANT RI APPLICANT SB APPLICANT YE RESPONDENT JBD Limited The Tribunal orders: Claim Dismissed. REASONS: Brief Details of Claim CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 1. In 2006, the ten applicants formed an art collective named BD. Over time, the collective purchased a number of paintings. On or about 2016, BD decided to sell all of its paintings. BD arranged with JBD Ltd (JBD) to sell the paintings through JBD’s gallery in [Redacted l...

8. De Wet v North Shore City Council [pdf, 323 KB]

   ...sealant works if there are only two surfaces to be sealed but is not usually adequate for three surfaces where there is required to be a bond breaker. I was referred to the Sikaflex construction detail which read: "If the joint has a solid, formed base it is essential to apply a bondbreaker tape to this surface in order to prevent back adhesion. This will then allow the sealant unrestrained movement throughout the depth of the joint." Mr Grigg, in reference to unit...

9. QC v OC [2023] NZDT 59 (21 February 2023) [pdf, 167 KB]

   ...misrepresent B in terms of her having ‘a [feature]’ and/or of being ‘show quality’? 13. I have not addressed all of the considerable arguments pertaining to misrepresentation, such as whether Mrs Bott conveyed, prior to the contract being formed, that she required a ‘show- quality’ puppy and therefore whether there is any inducement, because the counter-claim fails at the first hurdle, which is OC and ECs establishing as a fact that B’s [feature] is not suitable for showing...

10. LCRO 253/2013 DN v TW (8 August 2017) [pdf, 145 KB]

    ...TW’s service and fees was not necessary or appropriate. Background [2] Ms DN separated from her husband in March 2008, and in January 2009 instructed Ms TW to act for her. Ms DN was facing two issues: a potential claim against her and her former husband for a debt to a family trust (the trust) that may or may not have surrendered its interest in the family home to Ms DN and her husband while they were married, and the identification and division of property between Ms DN and...