Search Results

1. EH v KS [2023] NZDT 415 (25 August 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...them to the tip. They are now both destroyed. 6. KS denies being advised he was to pick them up and says if EH has destroyed them, he is no longer liable to build a third box. 7. The issues to be decided then are whether KS is in breach of his responsibilities under the contract and, if so, to what remedy is EH entitled. Findings 8. Firstly, the area of law that applies to this claim is contract, overlaid by the provisions of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, (the CGA). Dog...

2. KK v Q Ltd [2023] NZDT 258 (29 May 2023) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...carrier). 5. The Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) sets out the law that applies in relation to the liability of couriers when they carry goods. The CCLA sets out four categories of contract for the carriage of goods. The carrier’s responsibility for damage to goods depends on which kind of contract governs the particular case. 6. If the contract is “at owner’s risk” then the carrier is only liable for intentional damage. 7. Section 250 CCLA provides that a co...

3. KW v NX [2023] NZDT 264 (20 June 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...a duty to ensure her pathway was clear and give way to all vehicles on [Road 1] before entering. I find that NX failed to give way when she entered [Road 1] and collided with KW causing damage to his e-scooter. 7. As the negligent driver NX is responsible for restoring KW to the position he was in prior to the collision. Based on the invoice provided, I am satisfied that the reasonable repair cost is $430.00, therefore KW’s claim for $430.00 is proved. Is KW entitled to claim $240....

4. O Ltd & P Ltd v UU [2023] NZDT 474 (4 September 2023) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...case fall outside the MVDT’s limited jurisdiction. 4. Following the MVDT decision, the seller refused to release the car unless the buyer paid for storage as well as paying the panel beater’s bill, for which the buyer continued to disavow any responsibility. The buyer relented and paid the panel beater on 31 August 2022, but the seller continued to insist on payment of storage costs before it would release the car. 5. On 5 October 2022, O Ltd (the storer), a company with the same d...

5. KC & TC v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 278 (16th April 2024) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...over at an airport and remaining in the environs of the airport. 3. B Ltd respond that the electronic ticket provided to TC and KC clearly states that they will need a [visa]. The website also clearly states that persons booking on the site are responsible for all travel documentation as does B Ltd’s conditions of travel. 4. TC and KC consider the terms of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the CGA, apply to the booking service supplied by B Ltd and that the service was not supp...

6. NL & TG v JN [2024] NZDT 44 (12 January 2024) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...to live there. 7. The legal basis for NL and TG’s claim is the tort of trespass. A person commits a trespass if they put something onto someone else’s property without the property owner’s consent. 8. In tort law, the person who is responsible is the “tortfeasor” – the person who committed the careless or intentional act. For the tort of trespass, the trespasser is liable to the property owner. 9. A person is only liable for the tortious actions of other people i...

7. DI v EL & N Ltd [2024] NZDT 81 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...owed as a driver turning right to give way to all traffic travelling straight ahead in the lanes across which he was turning. 5. The law that applies is the law of negligence. Drivers must take reasonable care in operating their vehicle and are responsible for any reasonably foreseeable damage suffered as a result of a failure to do so. 6. The duty to take reasonable care includes a duty to follow the Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (“the Rules”). Rule 4.2 provides that...

8. VC v HL & BL [2025] NZDT 32 (7 February 2025) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...highest bidder whose bid is accepted by the auctioneer shall be the purchaser” (clause 2.1). 9. The vendors stated in their submissions that they did not understand the documents they signed regarding the auction. However, parties are generally responsible to read and understand the documents they sign, and are bound by their signature. They are also bound by the actions of their agent who had actual or at least apparent authority to accept the winning bid on their behalf. The appeara...

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

   ...and inconvenience of having to deal with the infringement and XQ Limited’s unsatisfactory appeal system. 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 Limit...

10. OT v UB [2024] NZDT 817 (11 November 2024) [pdf, 218 KB]

    ...investigating that. 13. However, the applicant was very keen to purchase the vehicle and knowing some remedial expense would be involved nevertheless offered the respondent $30K for the vehicle, being a $5K deduction in the asking price. 14. In response the respondent declined, stating she wished the [online] auction process to run its course. When the auction did not result in a sale, the applicant contacted the respondent again and renewed his offer to the respondent who...