Search Results

1. E v G [2023] NZDT 32 (10 February 2023).pdf [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...the hearing that he could see that the engine wasn’t in the greatest shape and had said to G that as long as it’s got good compression and no other issues, he’d go ahead. However he did ‘go ahead’ by paying the purchase price in full in response to G’s “Sold as is where is” email. 9. E did not take the important step of making the contract conditional, by ensuring that there was an agreement with G that his money would be refundable if the engine did not check out on...

2. KQ v UI [2023] NZDT 46 (10 February 2023) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...damage and a diagram showing the properties with the boundaries and the relationship of CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 the damage to the boundary. He states he spoke with UI about the damage in an effort to resolve the dispute and her response was she would see him in Court. 6. UI did not appear in the Tribunal and did not present any submissions. 7. UI has a duty to KQ to ensure her contractors are both aware of the boundaries and that they work only within the bounda...

3. BW v NK [2024] NZDT 27 (19 February 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...are: a. Was a misrepresentation made in the sale of the car? b. If so, is BW entitled to $4,966.00 as claimed, or to any other sum? Was a misrepresentation made in the sale of the car? 5. Contract law recognises a buyer in a private sale has a responsibility to carry out due diligence before entering a contract – that principle is called caveat emptor or, buyer beware. While the sale of goods is generally covered by Part 3 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”),...

4. [2024] NZEmpC 67 Roberts v The Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...Step 33 [17] The hearing was a half-day which was attended by both Mr Jim Roberts and Mr Morrissey on behalf of the plaintiff. The plaintiff seeks costs in relation to the appearance of Mr Morrissey. Counsel submits that Mr Morrissey has been responsible for a great deal of the work, that the defendant’s defence was a novel and technical statutory issue, and that it was appropriate for two counsel to appear. The plaintiff also submits that second counsel meets the expectations...

5. CL v NV [2024] NZDT 123 (31 January 2024) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...different lanes, or the overtaken vehicle is stationary, or its driver has given or is giving the prescribed signal of her intention to turn to the right. [7] If these conditions are not met, then the overtaking driver, albeit to the left will hold the responsibility for avoiding a collision. If the above conditions are met, and in this case the evidence shows the respondent was indicating a right turn, then the liability for avoiding a collision with a passing driver shifts to the ve...

6. JT v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 227 (24 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...time of filing the claim, JT had paid Q Ltd $95.00 and had requests for payment from Q Ltd for $325.00. JT seeks an order that she is not liable to Q Ltd for $325.00. 3. Q Ltd did not appear at the hearing, nor were there any submissions filed in response to the claim. Q Ltd has not been in contact with the Tribunal. I called Q Ltd. At first, I got voicemail messages. On one occasion K answered the call. I informed K who I was, and I was calling from the Disputes Tribunal. At that point t...

7. NW & NG v TM Ltd [2023] NZDT 579 (16 November 2023) [pdf, 115 KB]

   ...The applicants have provided extensive photographs that show the poor quality join and surface finish, with these issues affecting much of the new driveway. While the delay to one of the concrete trucks was likely outside TM Ltd’s control, their response to that situation was inadequate – a solution that resulted in a proper join where the older concrete met the newer concrete needed to be used because what was done is not fit for purpose. 9. The applicants have provided evidence in...

8. [2023] NZEnvC 274 Te Runanga o Ngati Awa v Bay of Plenty Regional Council [pdf, 278 KB]

   ...Tuwharetoa (BOP) Settlement Trust, and Tuwhakairiora O’Brien do not oppose Creswell’s application and abide the decision of the Court. (d) Ngati Pikiao Environmental Society, Ngati Pikiao Environmental Society and Rihi Vercoe did not provide any response. I am satisfied that this Court has the power to makes orders of this kind under rule 30 of Supreme Court Rules 2004 relating to stays of proceedings and execution. The Court also has the procedural powers under ss 116 and...

9. BT v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 274 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 176 KB]

   ...that it would proceed as an OBF, and a replacement provided. When it was returned to T Ltd, the company refused to replace it because it said it had been repaired. BT did not see the phone again, and despite multiple calls to T Ltd, no appropriate response was forthcoming. BT filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal for a refund. 2. This is a claim for a refund of the cost of a phone which has not been returned to BT nor properly repaired, in the sum of $1,469.30. BT also claims costs...

10. SG v UT [2023] NZDT 78 (1 March 2023) [pdf, 96 KB]

    ...on the part of the respondent, resulting in damage to property. I further accept the applicant’s evidence that she found holes drilled in the trunk of the tree which damaged it. I conclude that it is more likely than not that the respondent was responsible for these holes being drilled. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 6) The applicant decided that, as a result of the damage caused by the respondent, it was no longer [I here paraphrase] viable to keep the tree. I consider t...