Search Results

1. Q Ltd v KZ [2024] NZDT 297 (22 April 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   ...to which he had previously agreed. 10. KZ acknowledged that he had agreed to a fence and signalled his agreement to pay $6,531.37 by doing so. The payment was made in instalments over nearly 7 months, so KZ had plenty of time to consider the matter and to seek advice if required. 11. KZ describes his claim as retaliatory. KZ agreed to a fence and has benefitted from the amenity value of the boundary fence. KZ voluntarily made a contribution to the cost of the fence. Accordingly...

2. UL v TS [2024] NZDT 302 (27 March 2024) [pdf, 131 KB]

   ...name and address of their insurer. The insurer is then deemed to be a party to those proceedings. 6. For these reasons B Ltd is added as a party to the claim. Given the incident happened in 2021 and both parties wished a speedy resolution to the matter, the hearing continued. 7. The issues I have to consider are: a. Did TS take reasonable care not to cause damage to UL’s vehicle in a situation when she owed him a duty of care? CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 b. If no...

3. LG v C Ltd [2024] NZDT 518 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...present on any of the goods, then it was due to how LG had stored them and if mould was present, then it was likely they were stored damp. 7. LG did not provide any photos of the mould on her goods. She did not provide evidence of the type of matters she had, when she purchased it or how much she paid for it. She also did not provide evidence that she had dumped it. I also do not have any evidence that the storage container leaked. LG agreed that she did not have any evidence of a...

4. OQ v QM & ors [2024] NZDT 539 (22 July 2024) [pdf, 166 KB]

   ...straight forward with respect to branches of a tree, it is hard to imagine that cutting roots back, will cause anything other than harm. 16. However, putting aside the uncertain possibility that a toxic substance such as oil being spilt, or waste matter was involved, the respondents were entitled to undertake the duly consented construction work, and I would have to find on the balance of probabilities (i.e. to 51%) that they did so without taking “reasonable care.” 17. While mo...

5. SH v NS [2022] NZDT 102 (26 August 2022) [pdf, 196 KB]

   ...situation and NS requested full payment to secure the deal. 3. SH said it was at that time she noticed the bidding in the auction looked unusual in that a Facebook friend of NS had pushed the price up $4,000.00 without an auto bid. She referred the matter to [online auction website] and following their investigation, they reported that: “… the auction had been rigged through ‘shill bidding’ and she did not have to go through with the trade’. 4. SH was unable to get...

6. XP v O Ltd [2023] NZDT 729 (12 December 2023) [pdf, 223 KB]

   ...was uncertain when she would return. 5) Following O Ltd’s failure to attend at the first hearing, the tribunal noted in its adjournment order: “I have indicated to O Ltd’s company that should they be unprepared for the next hearing the matter may proceed in their absence.” 6) Accordingly, as is permitted, the tribunal continued with the hearing today, hearing only from XP. Background 7) XP applied for an order that O Ltd reimburse her the sum of $750.00 that she p...

7. MB v TX & EX [2023] NZDT 386 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 233 KB]

   ...accident, the taxi had three passengers in the back seat. TX was in the centre paying the driver. EX was seated to the right of TX. The car door was opened by EX. 5. MB originally claimed in the Disputes Tribunal against the taxi driver. That matter was heard by another Referee. The claim was dismissed as the Referee found the taxi driver not liable for the actions of his passenger. 6. MB now claims in the Disputes Tribunal against both TX and EX. The issues to be determined a...

8. GC v NT [2022] NZDT 184 (30 September 2022) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...her needs as much as possible. 6. On 31 May 2022 GC cancelled the contract on the basis that she was not going to get the music of her choice and requested her deposit back. NT agreed to return $250.00, which he said would bring an end to the matter. 7. GC now claims $250.00 as the portion of the deposit NT retained. 8. The issues to be determined are: (a) Was it a term of the contract that the deposit was non-refundable? (b) Was it reasonable for GC to expect to hav...

9. LZ v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 174 (22 May 2023) [pdf, 178 KB]

   ...promotional gift cards that were provided to LZ should be returned to I Ltd as they were part of the drone package. 6. Although I Ltd did not file a counterclaim and pay a filing fee, I am prepared to consider the question in order to finalise matters and I accept that the question of the promo cards overlaps with the claim. 7. In summary it was I Ltd’s position that because the drone was returned and the purchase price should be refunded, the gift promotions which were part of...

10. L Ltd v CT [2023] NZDT 229 (15 September 2023) [pdf, 90 KB]

    ...higher probability that that the respondent is an employee only and therefore cannot be liable under the contract. Surprisingly NS admits that the applicant has not visited the restaurant and asked for the name of the operator. This is of course a matter for the applicant but in the absence of this I am not persuaded there is sufficient evidence to find the respondent the contracting party. [7] On NS’s own evidence the applicant approached the restaurant and was referred to SJ. SJ met...