Search Results

1. DE v UC Ltd [2024] NZDT 203 (17 January 2024) [pdf, 96 KB]

   ...of a party does not prevent the hearing from proceeding. Section 42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act provides that where the case of any party is not presented to the Tribunal after a reasonable opportunity has been given to that party to do so, the matter may be resolved by the Tribunal on such evidence or information as is before it. 2. In July 2022, DE visited UC Ltd and was seen by KH, the director of UC Ltd. DE says he was informed at the consultation that he needed five dental...

2. WC & SD v CT Ltd [2022] NZDT 198 (21 November 2022) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...the notice given, the lack of agreed terms and conditions, the amount of the payment made in 2020 being more than a reasonable deposit, and the difficulties experienced communicating with SI, I find WC and SD are entitled to a refund. 10. This matter was heard by teleconference at 9.15am today. As a representative of CT Ltd did not answer calls made to the number provided for them, the hearing proceeded in their absence. Referee: K. Edwards Date: 21 November 2022...

3. D Ltd v R Ltd [2024] NZDT 228 (8 March 2024) [pdf, 189 KB]

   ...that led to [authorities] shutting down the site twice. 4. However, in spite of having the opportunity to present evidence to support its contentions in this regard (an initial hearing revealed that R Ltd had not had notice of the claim, so the matter adjourned with detailed written instructions on the adjournment order about how and when to file evidence for the next hearing), R Ltd filed no evidence. NY for R Ltd said they had requested [authorities]’s representative to attend t...

4. LF Ltd v DQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 186 (8 November 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...network. 2. The applicant filed a claim for a declaration that it was not liable to pay the respondent’s invoice for $2,499.42. This claim is struck out because the Tribunal cannot hear claims for non-liability in tort, only in contract. However, the matter was adjourned and the respondent filed a counterclaim for $2,499.42, so the Tribunal is now able to determine the dispute. 3. The issues to be determined are: a) Was the applicant responsible for the damage? Did the respondent co...

5. MI v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 102 (10 March 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...reject the goods and obtain a refund of the $1394.35 purchase price paid. As per section 18(c) of the CGA, he is also entitled to recover losses that were reasonably foreseeable as liable to result from the failure. 8. Laundromat costs until this matter was resolved are reasonably foreseeable (I note MI did not have the funds to buy a replacement machine without a refund for this one), and while I do not accept the claim as calculated for storage costs (storage in the living room of the...

6. Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Amendment Bill [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...consistent with the rights and freedoms affirmed in the Bill of Rights Act. In reaching that conclusion, we have considered the consistency of the Bill with s 14 (Freedom of expression) and s 27(1) (Right to the observance of the principles of natural justice). Our analysis is set out below. The Bill 4. The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 (‘the Settlement Act’)1 provides for the full and final settlement of all Māori commercial aquaculture claims since Sept...

7. JT v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 227 (24 February 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...Reminders were sent in December 2023 and January 2024. I am satisfied that Q Ltd were properly informed of the claim, and the hearing date and time, and had the opportunity to attend but disconnected the call. In the circumstances I am satisfied the matter could proceed in their absence. 4. The issues to be resolved are: a. Did JT trespass when she parked where she did? b. If so, does Q Ltd have authority to act for the landowner? c. And if so, what is the cost of the damage to land...

8. SG v QN [2022] NZDT 253 (16 December 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...responsible for the consequences of deciding to drive anyway. SG submitted that there is an established correlation between Alzheimer’s and the risk of a stroke. QN had mild dementia of the Alzheimer’s type. However, risk of medical events is a matter of degree. We generally trust medical professionals to weigh up when the risk factors reach a level that makes someone unsafe to drive. QN’s general practitioner had not warned her against driving, and subsequently provided a letter sta...

9. ZT v MN [2022] NZDT 100 (10 August 2022) [pdf, 165 KB]

   ...merit. It did fall within the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal under the general principles of the law of Contract and the specific cancellation provisions of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2107, and was within the monetary limit of $30,000. Matters concerning commercial leases, are dealt with on a regular basis in the Disputes Tribunal. 5. Therefore, the claim does not meet the test to be described as a vexatious and frivolous. In addition, MN elected to engage a lawyer to...

10. XT Ltd v OA Ltd [2022] NZDT 96 (9 August 2022) .pdf [pdf, 170 KB]

    ...3. At common law, the purpose of damages for breach of contract is to put the innocent party in the same position as if the contract had been performed, so far as money can achieve this. In this particular situation it makes no difference if the matter is considered in contract or under the tort of negligence, since the purpose is still to put XT Ltd in the same position as if the books had not been lost. OA Ltd’s terms and conditions state that the Carriage of Goods provisions of the...