Search Results

1. SD v W Ltd & X Ltd [2023] NZDT 407 (22 August 2023) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...the correct respondent was. HL confirmed to the Tribunal, in his oral evidence, the correct respondent was X Ltd. HL told the Tribunal he waived the companies right to eight working days’ notice of the claim. 4. SD presented no evidence on this matter. 5. I accepted the written evidence and HL’s oral evidence and added the second respondent. For these reasons I find the correct respondent to this claim is X Ltd. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 Is X Ltd in brea...

2. AM v BN [2022] NZDT 176 (29 September 2022) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...s135 condition. The purchaser is entitled to reject the car and claim a full refund of the price or value paid, and may also be entitled to claim for any expenditure made in reliance on the existence of the contract. 3. The parties in this matter agree that Mr BN did not sell the [car] to Mr AM. Mr BN had sold it to someone else and it was eventually on-sold to Mr AM. I am satisfied that there was no contract between Mr AM and Mr BN and consequently Mr AM does not have a legal c...

3. LM v TT [2022] NZDT 166 (2 November 2022) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...obtaining a CCC, that the way the purchase might be financed changed (cash buyer, finance from family, mortgage finance), that the prior family link between Mr TT and Ms OI’s brother in childhood affected his decision to sell to Mr LM, and other matters. However, all of this was in a pre-contract phase, a discussion/negotiation phase. None of this has any effect on the decision I have made. Referee: J.F. Tunnicliffe Date: 2 November 2022 Page 3 of 3...

4. BW v NK [2024] NZDT 27 (19 February 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...misrepresentation if they are false. This law is found in section 35 CCLA, which says a misrepresentation occurs where a party to a contract is induced to enter the contract by being told a false statement of fact. The law is clear that it does not matter whether that statement is innocently or fraudulently made. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 7. I find no misrepresentation was made in the sale of this car. 8. I say that because BW has been unable to show NK made a spe...

5. TC v NU [2023] NZDT 707 (19 December 2023) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...[5] The work of the arborist, who had cut up the tree and cleared the driveway, was $759.00. [6] NU said that he had been in the [Town] area on the day, which was Wednesday, the branch fell into TC’s property. He had been unable to attend to the matter immediately, but had said that he would come and look at the situation on Friday. He had not considered the issue urgent. [7] NU objected to paying for the arborist’s work which, he said, he could have done himself. [8] NU said t...

6. LB v VB Ltd [2022] NZDT 123 (25 August 2022) [pdf, 106 KB]

   ...directly to VB Ltd. This arrangement was informal and is not recorded on any paperwork. 2. LB claims that after he had possession of the vehicle for approximately 6 months, he was pulled over by the Police and was told the vehicle was stolen. The matter was then investigated by the Police, with the vehicle finally being seized by Police as a stolen vehicle in late 2021. 3. LB advised VB Ltd. VB Ltd refunded LB a total of $22,000 of the $39,000 that had been paid. LB claims VB...

7. O Ltd v MX & V Ltd [2023] NZDT 325 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 173 KB]

   ...November 2021, V Ltd sent the [car] to U Ltd to be sold at auction as a damaged vehicle. U Ltd contacted O Ltd regarding its security interest, and O Ltd said not to sell the vehicle. U Ltd refused to release the vehicle to either O Ltd or V Ltd until matters were sorted between them, and asserted the right to recover storage and legal costs. 3. In July 2022, MX defaulted on the loan, but U Ltd continued to hold the [car]. O Ltd filed a claim for possession of the vehicle against MX, V Lt...

8. NM v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 512 (25 October 2023) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...weeks for the airline to refund the tickets, it is difficult to see how that is the responsibility of a travel agency, in the absence of a contractual commitment to the contrary. 10. Because I can find no breaches of the FTA or the CGA, or for that matter the terms and conditions of the contract between NM and the company, the claim is therefore dismissed. Referee: M Wilson Date: 25 October 2023 Page 3 of 3 Information for Parties Rehearings Y...

9. O Ltd v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 586 (7 November 2023) [pdf, 208 KB]

   ...extras as per invoice dated 21/11/2022 $135,634.50 Less credit $ 6480.00 $129,154.50 Plus GST $ 19373.18 $148,527.68 Less paid to date $120,000.00 Balance outstanding $ 28,527.68 9. This matter was heard by teleconference at 9.15am on 26 October 2023, however as the representative of U Ltd did not answer calls made to the numbers provided for them, the hearing proceeded in their absence. Written submissions made by U Ltd hav...

10. OH v LT [2024] NZDT 298 (24 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

    ...stopped before the respondent began overtaking him. The applicant admits he has no independent evidence but would have me consider the position of the vehicles in the photographs taken after the collision. [5] I have carefully considered this matter. The evidence of both parties is very similar as to how the collision occurred, apart from the applicant’s position on the road as the respondent commenced passing him. [6] I accept the respondent did move some way to the right as he...