Search Results

1. EN v B Ltd [2022] NZDT 286 (17 March 2022) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...am satisfied that B Ltd did not carry out its service with reasonable care and skill. It seems to me that the method of how bags are handled for a passenger with an onward flight on an airline with which B Ltd does not have an alliance is basic information that ought to be known to an B Ltd staff person accepting a customer’s bags. That is because it stands to reason there must be numbers of people every day flying with B Ltd intending to catch an international flight with a non-alliance...

2. SG v QG [2023] NZDT 116 (15 March 2023).pdf [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...SG would collect the boat from the [City 1] Port on 31 August 2022? 7. Parties are bound by express terms of contract. Express terms are those that have been stated. Contract terms must be stated/agreed prior to or at the time the contract was formed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 8. I find it was not a term of the contract that SG would collect the boat from the [City 1] Port on 31 August 2022 for the following reasons: (a) The text messages provided by SG do not have date...

3. HE v QZ [2023] NZDT 373 (4 May 2023) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...to carry out; and/or; b. Even if there was no actual remedial work, HE spent $6,000- $7,000 more than he would have if QZ had not left the job. 36. However, HE faces the following difficulties in respect of those arguments: a. The only information provided about defective building work is the QC Ltd statement, quoted above, which was written in November 2020, well over a year after QZ left the site. There are no photographs or other evidence showing the allegedly defective work...

4. H Trustees Ltd v PT [2024] NZDT 512 (12 June 2024) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...situation PT finds himself in, on balance it would be unjust to allow rehearing at this late stage. Therefore, I dismiss PT’s application. Referee: Boys C DTR Date: 12 June 2024 Page 5 of 5 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. Guidelines-for-use-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-in-Courts-and-Tribunals-for-non-lawyers.pdf [pdf, 489 KB]

   ...substitute for a qualified lawyer and cannot give tailored legal advice. Unlike GenAI chatbots, lawyers have professional obligations and must uphold ethical standards to their clients and to courts and tribunals. GenAI chatbots can provide inaccurate information. If you choose to use a GenAI chatbot to help you with a dispute or with a case in a court or tribunal, you should not rely on it as your sole or main source of legal information. Free legal resources are available on the Min...

6. D Ltd v R Ltd & Ors [2024] NZDT 877 (29 October 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...stags from D Ltd. D Ltd says that these stags were part of a larger lot which R Ltd contracted to buy, and that the price per stag $4,250 (excluding GST) per animal was contingent on the purchase of all 16 stags. D Ltd says that by failing to perform the contract R Ltd has caused it losses, for which damages of $36,512, compromised to $30,000 to bring it the claim within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, are sought. 3. R Ltd says that the contract was only to purchase the 5 stags at $...

7. SE & UE v DT [2024] NZDT 661 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 202 KB]

   ...is liable to pay the cost of putting the other person back in the position they would have been in, had the damage not occurred. A court or tribunal will often consider therefore whether there has been diminution in value in property, alongside information provided about reinstatement or repair. 14. I find SE and UE are entitled to compensation of $25,512.00. 15. It is helpful first to summarise the components of SE and UE’s claim. Those components initially comprised:

8. 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...

9. CN v U Ltd [2024] NZDT 623 (17 July 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...were non-refundable in the event of cancelation and non-transferable without U Ltd’s prior approval? 9. Parties to a contract are bound by express and implied terms of contract. Express terms are those that have been stated prior to or at the formation of the contract. Implied terms are those that are so obvious they go without saying, or are implied into the contract by statute. 10. The onus to prove a claim lies with an applicant. The standard of proof required in the Tribunal...

10. BB v TS Ltd [2024] NZDT 828 (15 October 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...surface, the rot is under the ground. BB considered that subsequent builders were easily able to find the rot, however, they had the advantage of being able to remove the cladding and removed the sand to expose the pile. TS Ltd was not engaged to perform that service, but rather was to provide an opinion only on what it could see. I find that TS Ltd provided what it agreed to and provided no opinion of the condition of the piles below the ground level. I am therefore satisfied that TS...