Search Results

1. QU v GD Ltd [2024] NZDT 104 (9 February 2024) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...invalidated his medical cover as his stroke was related to those existing conditions. I say this for reasons including: i. QU acknowledged and I accept that he received the 2 page policy certificate which stated under the heading “Important Information” further details which included: 1. that the policy was issued on the basis that the policy holder answered questions accurately, 2. that they received the Policy wording, and 3. that the client should refer to the Website and...

2. CN v C Ltd [2022] NZDT 57 (18 February 2022) [pdf, 146 KB]

   ...rental company interpreted the exclusion as applying where anything other than the correct fuel type is put in the fuel tank. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 6. When interpreting a contract, the courts inquire what a reasonable and properly informed third party would consider the parties intended the words of their contract to mean, taking into account the “factual matrix” surrounding the contract. It is a well-established principle of law that exclusion clauses are interprete...

3. LCRO 45/2020 MN v RK (22 December 2020) [pdf, 249 KB]

   ...that task. [8] Sale of the property did not proceed smoothly. The parties were unable to agree on a number of issues. [9] Eventually the parties reached agreement that Mr GS would purchase Ms RK’s interest in the property. Mr MN was not informed of this proposal. [10] Mr MN rendered fees in the sum of $9,162.63 (GST inclusive). [11] On 25 January 2019, Ms RK filed a complaint against Mr MN with the Lawyers Complaints Service. [12] On 7 February 2019, Mr MN lodged a caveat ag...

4. H Ltd v TU, DU and GU as trustees for the U Family Trust [2024] NZDT 185 (4 March 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...caused by the failure of the Trust to keep its roof clean. For this reason, it is not necessary to consider the other two issues and the claim is dismissed. Referee: Sara Grayson Date: 4 March 2024 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a reh...

5. DI v NI [2022] NZDT 251 (5 December 2022) [pdf, 214 KB]

   ...walls and two containers with door openings. They disagree that it gives them the value and benefit DI proposes it gives. 22. The Tenancy Tribunal pointed out that NI and TF own the property and at best DI had a licence to occupy. This was not formalised in a contract and gave NI and TF the legal right to end the licence to occupy at any time. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 23. I acknowledge DI feels hurt and angry – he made that clear in the hearing. I am confident after

6. DT v-S Ltd [2019] NZDT 1510 (30 September 2019) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...the terms of the agreement? b) Should a refund be ordered under the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA)? Is DT is entitled to a refund under the terms of the agreement? 5. When interpreting a contract, the courts inquire what a reasonable and properly informed third party would consider the parties intended the words of their contract to mean, taking into CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 account the “factual matrix” surrounding the contract. The courts have held that any ambiguity i...

7. NC & DC v T Ltd & HG [2023] NZDT 222 (19 May 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...NC and DC $3100.25 on or before 5pm on 19 June 2023. 2. HG is struck off this claim. Reasons 1. The first hearing was adjourned. After that hearing, T Ltd and HG contacted the Tribunal and requested that I make a decision based on the information provided in the first hearing and the file. NC and DC agreed to that request. 2. Both parties told me they understood and accepted I would not take into consideration any further evidence or information and there will not be anothe...

8. PI v XU [2022] NZDT 212 (12 July 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...is entitled relief and if so, how much. Was PI entitled to cancel the contract? 6. A party to a contract may cancel the contract if, by words or conduct, another party (B) repudiates the contract by making it clear that B does not intend to perform B’s obligations under the contract (S.36(1)(a) Contract and Commercial Law Act). 7. I find that XU did repudiate the contract by making it clear that he could not pay. The written communications show that XU was not able to pay even a...

9. OB v BB [2023] NZDT 33 (7 February 2023) [pdf, 142 KB]

   ...4. The driver of a third car, TT, stopped and spoke to the parties after the collision. 5. OB and X Ltd claim the $4327.39 cost of repairs to OB’s car. BB had wished to bring a counter- claim for her damages but did not realise this required a formal lodging of a claim for her $2585.50 costs of repair, and so did not do so in the adjournment period. The parties agreed that this would be dealt with by way of a liability finding in respect of either driver first, then an adjournment for

10. NK v EI Ltd [2021] NZDT 1464 (10 February 2021) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...and 2) the windscreen was not refitted correctly after the rust repair. Remaining Rust 8. EI Ltd carried out its work on the area around the windscreen on or before 3 February 2020. 9. After a second incident with the windscreen, NK was informed on 26 November 2020 that there was again rust around the windscreen. 10. NK says he was advised that the work done previously by EI Ltd was inadequate. NK supplied a note in his evidence from a staff member at a branch of [Windscreen...