Search Results

1. DM & IW v HD [2022] NZDT 44 (2 May 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...happened. I am left with the conclusion that HD simply did not go far enough in pointing out why one product should be preferred over another. One might also wonder why HD would have suggested any products that might have produced a substandard job, and the only conclusion I can reach in this regard is that he did not consider his advice carefully enough. 9. The second reason that I am not prepared to accept HD’s defence that IW made the decisions that resulted in a poor result...

2. BT v PO Ltd [2022] NZDT 80 (12 January 2022) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...Tribunal orders: BT’s claim against PO Ltd is dismissed. Reasons 1. On 16 August 2021, BT contacted PO Ltd and enquired about having an airbag light issue in his vehicle repaired. He was given an estimate over the phone of $500.00 for the job. On 17 August 2021, BT dropped his car off to the PO Ltd site and handed his keys to WB, the Site Manager. that afternoon, the government announced that NZ was going into a ‘snap lockdown’ due to community transmission of the Delta vari...

3. VN v SC Ltd [2022] NZDT 240 (23 November 2022) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...to pay 25% of the contract price ($2,500.00) prior to the building works commencing. VN’s evidence was that she paid $2,500.00 to SC Ltd on 6 February 2022. VN’s evidence was that she expected to pay a further 25% of the contract price when the job was partially completed, and the remaining balance of the contract price (50%) upon completion of the work. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. I am satisfied that a contract existed between SC Ltd and VN. SC Ltd offered to do the...

4. [2023] NZEmpC 76 McMillan v Resque Corporation 20/20 Ltd [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...at this hearing is a fine. A request was made, however, to preserve the application for sequestration if the Authority’s order remains unsatisfied. That request is dealt with later. [12] In Peter Reynolds Mechanical Ltd t/a The Italian Job Service Centre v Denyer (Labour Inspector) the Court of Appeal referred to a range of factors to consider in assessing a fine under s 140(6).5 Those factors are not exhaustive but they include the nature of the default (that is whether it...

5. DX v STX & SCX [2023] NZDT 493 (2 October 2023) [pdf, 207 KB]

   ...cautious about the amount of damages that they are prepared to award under this heading. 33. It is important to acknowledge that the unveiling was an important and emotionally difficult event for DX and her whanau. DX relied upon SCX to do her job so that the event could be successful. The basic and inexcusable errors on the headstones showed a lack of care that was disrespectful and hurtful for DX. 34. I will award general compensation of $2,000.00 for hurt and inconvenience....

6. DT v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 225 (12 May 2023) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...that the work done by the respondent to lay the subsoil pipes and associated waterproofing, was done with reasonable care and skill. I say this because: a. The applicant did not provide any expert opinion that the respondent had done a poor job. The applicant had been offered an opportunity to provide this evidence after the first hearing was adjourned. The applicant had provided a quotation from a plumber to redo part of the work but this, in itself, is not evidence that the respond...

7. GL Ltd v MD [2020] NZDT 1369 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...[2020] NZDT 1369 APPLICANT GL Ltd RESPONDENT MD The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed Reasons 1. MD entered into a contract with GL Ltd for employment advocacy services after she was made redundant from her part-time job. 2. The contract was on a contingency basis and the terms of engagement provided that, unless the case was completed and lost, a fee would be payable, either a percentage of amounts paid to MD by her former employer or a termination f...

8. BL & TL v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 61 (5 February 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...proportion of the contract had been completed and/or the value of the completed work, I have worked backwards from the list of items that were not done when N Ltd stopped work on the site. 13. N Ltd submitted at the first hearing that the only jobs left to do were water-proofing and installation of a handrail, an approximate cost of $2400.00. However no evidence was presented in support of everything else having been done, so I have accepted BL & TL’s list of items from the scope...

9. DG v NQ [2023] NZDT 139 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...[10] NQ said that he had told DG, before he had begun the work, that he was neither a plumber nor an electrician. He said that he had left the electrical work incomplete, and told DG that he, NQ would arrange for an electrician to come and finish the job. However, he had been busy with other work for the following week or so, and had been unable to make such an arrangement. [11] NQ said that he had discussed with DG whether a new cylinder should be purchased, and DG had agreed that a sec...

10. DH & MX v SL [2024] NZDT 287 (30 March 2024) [pdf, 109 KB]

    ...stays relatively dry we may be able to get this done before Christmas”. 14. DH asked what would happen with the stumps. SL clarified that the trees would be cut at ground level. 15. DH replied “I spoke with my partner and he’d rather the job was done once and done right if it’s going to be done at all, so his preference is the stumps are removed also”. 16. SL replied that he was willing to bear the cost of taking down and reinstating the fence, but that he would not co...