Search Results

1. IB v ED [2024] NZDT 95 (21 February 2024) [pdf, 140 KB]

   ...any party suffers damage as the result partly of his own fault and partly of the fault of any other person, the damages recoverable may be reduced to such extent as the court thinks just and equitable having regard to the claimant’s share in the responsibility. 10. As I have not found ED responsible for the alleged damage to the vehicle I do not need to consider whether IB’s actions contributed to this. 11. With regard to the poles, I find that IB’s own actions contributed to...

2. D Ltd v Q Ltd [2025] NZT 36 (7 February 2025) [pdf, 121 KB]

   ...had confirmation as to when the removal of the house could be undertaken. The contractor replied, “I have had discussions and at this current stage they are looking at end of Feb/start of March for removal dates”. 5. The purchaser viewed this response as a commitment that the house would be ready by the start of March, but I consider that it was no more than an estimate. Reasons include the vagueness of the date range given, the words “at this current stage” suggesting it was su...

3. EM v KU [2024] NZDT 662 (15 September 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...misrepresentation made in the sale of the [Car]? b. If so, is Mr Larson entitled to compensation of $3,600.00 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 generally described as caveat emptor or, buyer beware. While the sale of goods is generally covered by Part 3 of the Contract and Commercia...

4. MM v UN Ltd [2024] NZDT 668 (22nd July 2024) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...249(3), it was therefore a contract for carriage at limited carrier’s risk. 8. Where goods are carried at limited carrier’s risk, the contracting carrier is liable to the contracting party for any loss or damage that occurs while the carrier is responsible for the goods. Under s 259, liability is limited to $2,000 for each unit of goods lost or damaged. Is the carrier liable for damage to the bedheads and frame? If so, what damages are payable? 9. The carrier asserted that the ow...

5. Armstrong v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2025] NZACC 59 (8 April 2025) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...October 2024. In the event, Mr Armstrong states that it was only on 21 January 2025 that he was advised by Fairway Resolution that the Corporation had made a decision on his claim. It was therefore reasonable for the Corporation to bear some of the responsibility for the delay in Mr Armstrong filing his notice of appeal. [15] This Court is satisfied that Mr Armstrong’s delay arose out of understandable error or inadvertence. (c) The conduct of the parties [16] The Supreme C...

6. BX v HL [2024] NZDT 372 (13 June 2024) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...medical event experienced by HL. This displaces the usual inference that the damage to the other cars was caused as a result of HL failing to take care while driving. 19. The courts have found that a driver affected by a medical event may still be responsible if the decision to drive was negligent due to awareness of the danger of such a medical event occurring. If HL knew that there was a high chance of him suffering a seizure that would have made it too risky for him to drive, he w...

7. OT v KI [2024] NZDT 385 (3 May 2024) [pdf, 180 KB]

   ...unavoidable when stripping off the film. Since the supplier failed to clean the glass properly, the consumer was entitled to have it removed, and the risk of further scratches from removal should be borne by him in that situation. I therefore find him responsible for most of the scratches directly, and any further scratches from the stripping indirectly. What sum, if any, is payable between the parties? 12. The supplier’s failure was of a substantial character, given it could only b...

8. DZ v LU & IW Ltd [2024] NZDT 469 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...However, as pointed out at the hearing, even if IW Ltd did not receive the rates invoices on time, rates are a predictable and known outgoing, both in terms of frequency and amount. IW Ltd must therefore have known that rates were due and they had some responsibility to follow up on the bill/s before or at the time they were transferring the lease. 13. Since DZ has not provided evidence of if/when she sent the rates bills to IW Ltd, and since she also had a responsibility to mitigate...

9. [2024] NZEnvC 258 Valentine v Auckland Council [pdf, 218 KB]

   ...decision on the facts. Secondly there is its broader function as a public authority (ie as regional council or territorial authority). In that capacity, too, a respondent may have a case to present to the Court, either directly from its own governance responsibilities, or as representing what it perceives as interests of its constituents. [40] The Environment Court, in deciding an appeal, is particularly assisted by the case presented by a consent authority for the information about the...

10. FC & NH v LT [2024] NZDT 856 (29 August 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

    ...to charge interest. 9. In conclusion, I find: a. The loan was agreed to be repaid within two months being by 6 June 2021 at the latest; b. There was no agreement that interest would be charged; and c. There was no agreement that LT would be responsible for any costs NH incurred in recovery of the debt. Has LT made repayments in accordance with these terms, or any agreed variation? 10. It is clear that LT has failed to comply with the original repayment terms as the first pa...