Search Results

1. QF Ltd v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 664 (28 September 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...conditions in email correspondence, it is not clear that I Ltd received those prior to contracting with QF Ltd. Therefore, they cannot be relied upon in this dispute. It seems that the parties did not have clear terms in the contract around testing, and responsibility or opportunity for repairs should anything need further work. However, there is an obligation on all parties to mitigate any losses that they claim from another party. 5. As QF Ltd was not given an opportunity to test it...

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

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 34 APPLICANT UI and II RESPONDENT D Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons 1. In late 2020 UI and II took their [car] to D Ltd because there was a leak between the convertible roof and the windscreen. UI and II say that they had read online that the seals can open up a bit and to ask the de

3. Hetherington v Accident Compensation Corporation Claims Process [2023] NZACC 37 [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...to review the Corporation’s decision of 9 August 2007. On 8 July 2011, the Corporation wrote to Mr Hetherington’s advocate requesting further information as to the reasons for the lateness of the review. The Corporation did not receive a response. On 12 August 2011, the Corporation declined to accept the late review application. On 2 December 2011, a review of the Corporation’s decision was dismissed. Mr Hetherington appealed against the reviewer’s decision. On 7 May...

4. I Ltd v EX [2024] NZDT 219 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...However it was I Ltd’s unblocking service that had been requested and engaged. The scope of work was to clear a blockage and I do not accept, having found a blockage and cleared it (meaning getting the water fully flowing again), that I Ltd had any responsibility to or any reason to investigate the property further. 11. With respect to the subsequent unblocking visits, NT from I Ltd explained (and it is recorded on the job worksheets and invoices) that each blockage was different, i...

5. 2023 NZPSPLA 027 [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...security work whilst his COA and license are suspended. [14] Accordingly, I have found the answers to the three questions posed at clause 9 above to have been answered in the affirmative. Conclusion [15] In considering the appropriate response to the above findings, I note that a finding of misconduct is a discretionary ground for the cancellation of a COA or license.1 Further, as it has been established that Mr James now has disqualifying grounds to holding a COA or li...

6. B Ltd v CT [2023] NZDT 239 (6 June 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...additional 3.6 m3 of concrete is at $439.30 (GST inclusive) per m3. This is because this is the price that it would have been able to obtain the concrete at if the initial pour date had not been delayed, and I find in the paragraph 14 below that B LTD was responsible for the delay in the concrete pour. Did B LTD carry out its services with reasonable care and skill? 13. Section 28 of the CGA provides consumers with a guarantee that services will be carried out with reasonab...

7. BI v LU [2023] NZDT 589 (10 November 2023) [pdf, 205 KB]

   ...of a handyman), of a [baby pizza oven]. The applicant alleged that the respondent had been negligent in failing to obtain/follow certain installation specifications (that had been forwarded to him) when installing the pizza oven and was therefore responsible for the fire damage. The respondent denied he had received the relevant specification and therefore denied liability. Was the respondent negligent when installing the [baby pizza oven]? The pizza oven was purchased by the res...

8. [2023] NZEmpC 115 Carrington Resort Jade LP v Maheno [pdf, 226 KB]

   ...to have taken the view that, as the defendant’s previously notified representative, he should have been served with a copy of the statement of claim. It also seems that he was unclear whether Ms Maheno had been served. In any event, he takes responsibility and apologises for the delay. [5] The plaintiff opposes the extension of time. Mr Tan, Carrington’s representative, says the delay has not been adequately explained. He says that in the circumstances, the plaintiff was e...

9. UD v CE [2023] NZDT 73 (4 April 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...reversing we must take extra special care before and during the reversing manoeuvre to ensure the way is clear. 5. Land Transport (Road User) Rule 1.8 states a person is not in breach of the Rule if that person proves that an act took place in response to a situation on the road AND the situation is not the person’s making AND the act was taken to avoid death or injury of a person. 6. CD states, he was coming up [Street] and saw a white van stopped just before a pedestrian cross...

10. BZ v OJ [2023] NZDT 221 (24 April 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

    ...a misrepresentation that induced BZ into the purchase? 7. As this was a private sale, there are no implied warranties or conditions concerning the quality of the car. Contract law in New Zealand recognises that a buyer in a private sale has a responsibility to carry out due diligence before entering a contract – that principle is called “buyer beware”. 8. However, s 35 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 states that where a party is induced to enter into a contract...