Search Results

1. 2021 NZPSPLA 014.pdf [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...that would prejudice Mr H’s ability to seek alternative employment within the security industry was out of proportion to the gravity of the offending. I agree. [27] Mr H has already paid a considerable price for his actions. He has lost his job and was charged with a criminal offence. Since then he has found it very difficult to find another position in his area of expertise. I do not consider any further penalty is necessary. Mr H may keep his certificate of approval. Concl...

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

   ...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 that this demonstrates that neither the materials used nor the workmanship for the driveway and paths inside the property was...

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

   ...payment back. You are right”) does not constitute a binding settlement as the terms are not sufficiently clear. A few days after QM’s email, he changed his mind again and contacted FQ and TZ to communicate that he will guarantee to complete the job and of his plan to use ‘google satellites as my camera of choice’. Are FQ and TZ entitled to cancel the contract and obtain a full refund, according to the provisions of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993? 7. Section 29 of the Co...

4. KG v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 627 (1 November 2023) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...had paid because it informed her in writing on 16 August when she was advised that to secure the booking, she would need to pay the deposit of $997.00 and that, ‘This is non-refundable within 28 days of commencement, unless M Ltd cancels the job. Remaining balance of 50% due on the day of delivery.’ 9. It is an important to determine whether (i) KG threatened not to pay the full price, leading to M Ltd requiring her to pay the full price in advance or (ii) M Ltd, as a...

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

   ...existing shower liner, glass frame and shower tray have to be removed due to the base not being level. If not, did G Ltd get an opportunity to remedy the failure? 13. It was not in dispute that G Ltd were notified of the failure soon after the job had been carried out. The owner of G Ltd was repeatedly called by SN over a six-month period in an attempt to get her shower remedied. I accept that SN asked the owner personally to inspect the shower as she did not confidence in those...

6. MX & MY v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 622 (17 November 2023) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...supplier, and of such a nature and quality as to be reasonably expected to achieve any particular result that the consumer makes known. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 5. The Applicants position is that they wanted a high quality job, but instead the quality of the surface preparation and the standard of the finish was poor, falling short of acceptable trade standards with inadequate coats, that paint was dropped on 3 windows and there was damage to the brand new window h...

7. VL v U Ltd & LF Ltd [2023] NZDT 671 (6 December 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) provides guarantees to consumers that services they receive must be provided with reasonable care and skill, and that they must be fit for purpose. Reasonable skill refers to the technical know-how required for the job. Reasonable care refers to how much care is taken to perform the service. Any work done must be at least as good as the work of a competent person with average skills and experience for that type of work. In this case, the work carried out...

8. K Ltd v AI & OL [2024] NZDT 250 (28 March 2024) [pdf, 144 KB]

   ...therefore available. Was the credit amount given by K Ltd for the carport demolition reasonable? 15. I find that the amount claimed on the counter-claim by AI and OL, of $6777.50+GST, for demolition work to the carport that was varied as the job proceeded (only part of the carport CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 needed to be demolished instead of all of it, as provided under the agreed scope) is not reasonable. This is because, as K Ltd pointed out, the figure of $6777.50+...

9. [2024] NZEmpC 154 Hu v Passion Fresh Ltd [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...instalments. [9] Ms Hu’s affidavit disclosed, in a broad and general way, her recent financial situation. She deposed to difficulties after her employment ended, problems during the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently struggling to find a job matching her abilities and experience. She described her relatively recent employment, from February 2023 until mid-July 2024, when she resigned to undertake some study. She did not disclose her income, assets or liabilities. [10] Ms...

10. SX v Q Ltd & TY [2024] NZDT 239 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 106 KB]

    ...SX for clearing the gutters but when the gutters were checked after Q Ltd’s contract was terminated, the gutters and the drain were completely blocked. Q Ltd CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 claims the contractor had not yet finished the job, despite having advised SX that the work had been completed several months prior. 10. Failure to inspect the property after one tenant left and the next tenant moved in, resulted in the tenant seeking reimbursement for skip hire to remove...