Search Results

1. SX v S Ltd [2023] NZDT 160 (2 May 2023) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 160 APPLICANT SX RESPONDENT S Ltd The Tribunal orders: SX’s claim against S Ltd is dismissed. Reasons: 1. The respondent provided monthly software services to the applicant at the cost of US$6.90 per month from January 2021. In August 2022, the cost of these services rose to US$69.00 per month. The applicant was charged the higher price for five months before he cancelled the agreement w...

2. OIA-104830.pdf [pdf, 1.1 MB]

   ...indicate whether ‘drink spiking or disabling’ occurred. In response to your request, please refer to Table 1 attached, which contains the number of drink spiking or drink disabling charges that resulted in a conviction, broken down by Justice Service Area (JSA) and gender from 1 January 2013 to 31 December 2022. To clarify the location of the courts, we also attach Appendix A, which is the list of New Zealand courts in each JSA. Please note, the Ministry does not record the ge...

3. OIA-113595.pdf [pdf, 1.2 MB]

   ...justice.govt.nz/about/official-information-act-requests/oia-responses If you are not satisfied with this response, you have the right to make a complaint to the Ombudsman under section 28(3) of the Act. The Office of the Ombudsman may be contacted by email to info@ombudsman.parliament.nz or by phone on 0800 802 602. Nāku noa, nā Jacquelyn Shannon Group Manager, Courts & Tribunals, Regional Service Delivery • A person may receive more than one typ...

4. AR v ZI ZIZ Ltd [2014] NZDT 574 (26 May 2014) [pdf, 24 KB]

   ...to determine are: (a) Who were the contracting parties? (b) What were the terms of the original contract? (c) Was there a second contract formed after the applicant’s former employer went into liquidation? (d) Did ZI provide his service with reasonable care and skill, that is, did he meet the statutory guarantees provided for in the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993? (e) What remedies, if any, are available to AR? Law and Decision Who were the contracting parties? [7...

5. NW v B Ltd [2022] NZDT 145 (12 September 2022) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...the case, B Ltd’s decision to delay the flight was made necessary by force majeure, and meets the test required by section 91Z (b) of CA Act for the following reasons. 11. B Ltd is predominantly the single provider of a limited passenger air service into and out of [City A], being a relatively small and geographically isolated region. The choice of flight destinations is restricted primarily to [City D] and [City B], and as such a consumer has no choice than to fly via either of tho...

6. UI & II v D Ltd [2023] NZDT 34 (31 January 2023) [pdf, 104 KB]

   ...bit and to ask the dealer for a ‘roof adjustment’. . QN for D Ltd says that D Ltd staff explained that it is usually not a roof adjustment that is needed and recommended replacing the seals (the vehicle was 13 years old at the time). 2. The service card from 21 September 2020, the first visit, records the initial request as ‘Carry out roof adjustment as required – slight water leak at front between roof and windscreen’, and has the first part crossed out and replaced with ‘...

7. BN & HH v KT & BB [2023] NZDT 402 (23 August 2023) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...needs replacing. The applicants rely upon Clause 7.3(1) of the standard agreement, that the fireplace is a fixture and provides heating and should be in “reasonable working order”. 3. The issues to be resolved are: (a) Is the fireplace a service or amenity? (b) If so, can the respondents rely on “due diligence”. (c) Was the condition of the fireplace in breach of the warranties? (d) If so, what is the remedy? Is the fireplace a service or amenity? 4. The res...

8. BN v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 633 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...NZDT 633 APPLICANT BN RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: N Ltd is to pay $1943.75 to BN on or before 10 October 2024. Reasons 1. On 27 May 2024 the parties contracted for BN to provide locum pharmacist services to N Ltd for 6 days in June 2024 (June 4,5, 9, 10, 11 and 12). Hours and rates were agreed. 2. At 7.21pm on 28 May, NQ from N Ltd messaged BN to say that their pharmacist had cancelled his annual leave so they no longer needed her s...

9. SB v XQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 663 (3 September 2024) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...3. NS appeared on behalf of XQ Limited. NS confirmed the company was no longer pursuing SB for recovery, and denied XQ Limited was legally responsible for the costs claimed by SB. 4. The Issues to be resolved are: a. Has XQ Limited provided services with reasonable care and skill? b. If not, is SB entitled to compensation, and if so what is a reasonable sum? Has XQ Limited provided services with reasonable care and skill? 5. Contracts can include both express terms agreed betw...

10. XB v KI [2022] NZDT 226 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 198 KB]

    ...past fact that is false. 13. XB says that KI misrepresented the car because when he asked her if it had any mechanical or electrical issues, she replied no. The day prior to XB test driving the car, KI had taken the car to [A mechanic] for a service. The service report indicates that the DPF light was on the day before the test drive. XB says this is evidence that there was a mechanical or electrical issue with the car, yet KI told him there was no such issue. 14. There was a dis...