Search Results

1. N Ltd v TC [2019] NZDT 1364 (25 September 2019) [pdf, 220 KB]

   ...liable to pay that amount. 15. Based on the proportional liability finding at point 11, Ms C is liable to pay 80% of $11,937.63, being $9550.10. Referee: Date: 25 September 2019 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order 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 or a mistake was made. If you wish to a...

2. CW Ltd v KI [2020] NZDT 1359 (21 October 2020) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...booklet. Further KI points out that what she intended to be the interior cover could not have been the main cover as it does not contain her name as author and illustrator as one would expect to see on a main cover. I accept that there was sufficient information available to QQ that they should have realised, or at least sought to clarify, that the complete booklet was made up of two files. 12. However, unfortunately KI confirmed the mistake, first by accepting the quotation for 28 pr...

3. EI v CT [2021] NZDT 1703 (24 June 2021) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...timely services. 4. The issues I must decide are: a. Was the work done as contracted? b. If so, is EI entitled to $603.75 as claimed, or any other sum? Was the work done as contracted? 5. Under contract law, a legally binding contract is formed when both parties intend to contract on agreed terms and intend for those terms to be legally binding. The terms of a contract are formed at the beginning, not at the end, and what was agreed is looked at objectively, i.e., by looking at...

4. JL v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 76 (17 June 2022) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...under this section of the Building Act, a problem or issue raised in the required timeframe is presumed to be a ‘defect’ unless the building contractor or the on-seller/developer prove otherwise. 8. D for N Ltd has provided evidence in the form of vehicle crossing requirements and crossing approvals as well as photographs of all the laying out, to show that the entire job of preparing and laying the driveway and paths was done at the same time as the vehicle crossing. He contends...

5. FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...2020, FQ and TZ booked the services of QM as a photographer for their wedding, which was originally scheduled for November 2021. They paid a 20% deposit of $599.00, $2999.00 being the full contract price. 2. In April 2021, they contacted QM to inform him that the wedding had been postponed to December 2022 due to Covid-19-related travel restrictions preventing overseas guests from attending on the original date. 3. QM confirmed and booked in the new date. Later, in October 2021, fo...

6. BS v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 168 (3 July 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...BS paid for the timber to be picked up and set up in the shed in 2019 it is a reasonable inference that he expected to pay for its removal from the shed. 21. For these reasons I am satisfied that BS should pay the fee for the removal of his plank form the shed for which he was invoiced $100 before gst. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 22. Because I have found that there was a quasi-contractual relationship between the parties for the storage of the plank, I am satisfied that...

7. M1 Ltd v M2 Ltd & FS [2023] NZDT 739 (15 December 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...hearing had the applicants undertaken due diligence. It is noted in the 1 [2003] 1 NZLR(HC & CA) 2 Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 decision that the applicants informed the Tribunal that they didn’t have the evidence because they hadn’t started work on it yet. However, in the original claim, it is clear in their application that they had been informed that a BWOF was required, even though they had...

8. SN v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 645 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...contract and be compensated for the estimated costs for the repairs by another supplier of $2,139.00. She is not liable for the outstanding amount to G Ltd. Referee: P Goddard Date: 25 October 2023 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 re...

9. J Ltd v HH & KH [2023] NZDT 665 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...$494.00. Conclusion 13. For these reasons KH and HH are to pay J Ltd the sum of $494.00 by the date stated in the order. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: K Rendall Date: 28 September 2023 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...

10. NE & SE v JI [2023] NZDT 661 (31 October 2023) [pdf, 260 KB]

    ...vendor’s plumber must have noticed that the roofing paper was severely degraded on either side of the repair site and must have been aware there were wider issues with the roof. They believe the plumber and vendor had a duty to disclose this information, but turned a blind eye, and that the plumber’s work was negligent. The report from the contractor who replaced CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 the roof says there was no ‘change of pitch’ flashing and the roof was “no...