Search Results

1. DD v SQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 72 (31 January 2022) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...1993). The paint supplied was not the colour DD ordered. This failure only applies to the colour. The quality of the paint supplied was the same as DD ordered. The addition of tint did not affect the quality or usefulness of the paint. What responsibility did DD have regarding checking the product supplied? 8. The question that follows is whether there was any obligation on DD to check that the paint matched her request. DD’s position is that she should be able to rely on SQ t...

2. FQ & TZ v QM [2022] NZDT 77 (8 February 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...hired QM specifically. The live stream proposal also has similar drawbacks as the other proposals above in terms of technology, particularly given that QM is living outside New Zealand currently. 13. QM refers to the contract stating that he has no responsibility for “compromised coverage due to causes beyond the control of the company”. Again, it is not possible to contract out of the CGA so the service provided must always be reasonably fit for purpose. In this case, it is not th...

3. KT & others v ON & UN [2019] NZDT 1564 (6 March 2019) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...caused by a palm frond, or fronds, from ON and UN’s property. Did ON and UN’s hibiscus tree roots cause damage to LQ’s garden? 10. The relevant law is the law of tort and specifically the law of private nuisance. Occupiers of land are responsible when they create, adopt or continue a state of affairs which brings about damage or disturbance to one’s neighbours land, or which substantially interferes with the use and enjoyment of that land. 11. LQ states ON and UN’s hi...

4. TU v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 670 (8 December 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...operational for five months. 4. Evidence of communications between TU and NG, and other contractors enlisted by I Ltd show TU requesting assistance to fix issues with the system on many occasions, and in several instances, receiving no response. Included in the various efforts to fix the system were system upgrades, electrical repairs, replacement of the pump, a replacement of the non-return valve and finally, in July 2019, a full system rebuild. The majority of these interventi...

5. Rapatini v Accident Compensation Corporation (Leave to appeal to the High Court) [2023] NZACC 97 [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...Henare and Judge Spiller “overruling her classification and cover status of her work-related gradual process as lodged and overruling the legislation of jurisdiction that she is seeking cover under.” [6] She refers to s 54 which deals with the responsibility of the Corporation to make reasonable decisions in a timely manner. [7] She refers to s 55 relating to the responsibilities of the claimant to assist in the establishment of cover and entitlements. She also refers to s 56 w...

6. [2023] NZEmpC 109 MNO v PQR [pdf, 217 KB]

   ...created the relevant bill in Xero, approved the bill and paid it – usually within minutes of creating the original bill. [10] The bank account was a Westpac bank account. ANZ asked Westpac to provide the identity of the account holder. In response to that request, ANZ was advised that the owner of the account was the respondent. [11] In the course of the investigations undertaken by MNO’s Acting General Manager, the company has not identified any commercial basis for MNO’s...

7. QS v SQ [2023] NZDT 56 (21 February 2023) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...by SQ of $750.00 being a refund of the $640.00 bond, and compensation of $110.00 for the shoes and food which QS had requested be returned to him. He amended the claim to $790.00 at the hearing. 3. SQ did not attend the hearing as there was no response to the phone number attributed to her, and no defence to the claim was provided to the Tribunal. The absence of the respondent does not prevent the hearing going ahead. 4. The issues I need to decide are: a) What was QS’s and...

8. Fox v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late Filing to the District Court) [2024] NZACC 081 [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...This Authority to Act was required for lodging the appeal because he, and not Ms Fox, had signed the Notice of Appeal. [14] This Court is satisfied that the delay in fully lodging Ms Fox’s appeal was not caused by any fault of her own, as the responsibility for providing the necessary Authority to Act lay with her counsel.5 (c) The conduct of the parties [15] The Supreme Court observed that a history of non-cooperation and/or delay by an applicant might be relevant. [16]...

9. Di v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2024] NZACC 95 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 153 KB]

   ...the representative is received. In Ms Di’s case, the Notice of Appeal was signed by Mr Peart, and so could not be registered until the Authority to Act was received by the Registry. [15] This Court notes that it appears that Ms Di was not responsible for the late filing of her appeal in proper form, and that the late filing resulted from error or inadvertence of her counsel. (c) The conduct of the parties [16] The Supreme Court observed that a history of non-cooperation a...

10. CU Ltd v ZS & HC Ltd [2023] NZDT 588 (24 November 2023) [pdf, 272 KB]

    ...quoted a lower sum for the two orders of frame truss and pre-cut timber. For lot 62 they were quoted the price of $18,771.23 and were later invoiced $24,910.28. For lot 110 they were quoted the price of $18,833.96 and were later invoiced $22,405.83. In response, the Respondents said they only paid the original sum invoiced plus ten percent extra as a good will gesture. They dispute that they owe any further sum to CU Ltd. 3. CU Ltd defended the invoice amounts and gave evidence that th...