Search Results

1. Calculator FAQ

   ...RBNZ. For days after this date, the current rate should be treated as indicative only and subject to change each month: see How is the interest rate applied to the debt? What if I think the calculation is wrong? Under current legislation, the Ministry is responsible for ensuring a calculator allows interest to be calculated:  At the relevant interest rate or interest rates expressed as a daily effective rate; and At daily intervals. The calculator must also comply with any prescribed rules o...

   Located in:

   1. Fines & payments >
   2. Civil debt interest calculator

2. Participating in a Virtual Meeting Room court hearing

   Important notice for remote hearings: Court participants must follow the court rules and protocols, and must not record, photograph or publish any part of a remote court hearing. This is a breach of the court's protocol and will be treated as a breach of a court order. On this page: Business Continuity Plan (BCP) for Remote Courts Attending a remote courts hearing Information for family, whānau, media and the public How to apply to view a hearing remotely Recordings Filing documents

   Located in:

   1. Courts >
   2. Going to court

3. NN v D Ltd [2025] NZDT 82 (10 February 2025) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...performance of the services by [Vehicle Service Company]. It is clear that ultimately the engine was not suitable to enable the car to be used for racing (i.e. its acknowledged ‘purpose)’, but this only begs the question why this was so, i.e. whose responsibility it was, which brings the focus back to the issue of services being carried out with reasonable care and skill. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 17. D Ltd’s evidence is that the damage to the engine is likely the...

4. CX v I Ltd [2025] NZDT 150 (20 May 2025) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...CX’s conduct had not been reasonable. His view was that a reasonable consumer would expect that a manufacturer would need, particularly in the case of imported goods, time to investigate the availability of spare parts. KH said that CX’s aggressive response to TE’s’ statements was such that CX did not hear, or accept, that TE was intending to make enquiries; rather, CX had left the premises in an angry state in and, within 48 hours of making his original complaint, had purchased re...

5. KT & SG v D Ltd [2025] NZDT 139 (23 March 2025) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...foreign matter entered the oil reservoir when D Ltd carried out an oil change, and therefore D Ltd did not breach the s 28 guarantee. I make this finding for the following reasons: i. SG and KT said they believed either a disgruntled employee was responsible for putting the foreign matter into the oil reservoir when changing the oil; or, that wood pellets used to mop up spilt oil were carelessly handled and entered the oil reservoir. ii. ED said the wood shavings used are very fine p...

6. ON v M Ltd [2025] NZDT 138 (3 March 2025) [pdf, 190 KB]

   ...2023, ON purchased a couch from M Ltd. The couch arrived mid November 2023. By 29 December 2023, ON noticed threads starting to come out in different areas of the couch. She emailed M Ltd of her concerns. However, she said that she did not receive a response from M Ltd until May 2024. M Ltd sent ON a claim form which she filled out. M Ltd advised ON that the issue was with the material so it should be investigated by the manufacturers of the material. In June 2024, a representative from X...

7. 2025 NZPSPLA 111 pdf [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...of any penalty and any other relevant factors relating to Mr Penjueli’s competency, experience, and character. [21] I accept Mr Penjueli’s and GRM’s misconduct was more due to poor business systems than an intentional breach of his legal responsibilities. As far as possible he has remedied the breaches and with the assistance of Ms Clifford put better processes in place to ensure similar mistakes are not made in the future. I therefore conclude that the appropriate penalty is a...

8. AT v X Ltd [2025] NZDT 191 (19 May 2025) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...and not minor. Bolding is mine. 9. In June 2020 AT was emailing X Ltd that it was liable for building defects and suggesting it contact its insurer. He says he did not become aware of the full remediation, scope and costs or attribution of responsibility until 2024 when a building consent was issued. However, Rea clearly says that full knowledge of everything as AT submits is not the test. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 10. I am satisfied that as early as 2020 AT was awa...

9. JB v BL [2025] NZDT 226 (11 June 2025) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...than a full rebuild. This was because JB had made clear he was not able to afford a full rebuild. 6. I do not, however, accept BL’s contention that the parties agreed it was only a ‘cheap fix’ (as set out in paragraph 1 of BL’s written response) and that the agreed purpose was “a budget repair to keep the car running short-term” (as set out in paragraph 4 of BL’s written statement). I say that because JB denied this was what he had agreed to, and also because the cost of...

10. GA v IX [2025] NZDT 236 (17 June 2025) [pdf, 219 KB]

    ...evidence IX breached his obligations. IX, with the assistance of OD, arranged business class tickets for GA. The tickets were issued on 12 April. I find IX had fulfilled his contractual obligations at that point. 13. As I find no evidence IX was responsible for the subsequent cancellation and changes to the tickets, or that he has received or benefitted from a refund from [airline company], the claim against him is accordingly dismissed. K Edwards Disputes Tribunal Referee...