Search Results

1. QH v TU Ltd [2022] NZDT 12 (22 March 2022) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...the blue pin would have been on [Address 2]. Other areas however would have been highlighted on the app, e.g. [Address 1], to show the other available LQ Ltd spaces in the area. 8. After hearing evidence from all parties, I find it likely this matter is due to user error. QH was unfamiliar with the app, and as she had only downloaded it while in her car to enable her to park in [Address 1], I find it likely QH did not take sufficient time to familiarise herself with the features and...

2. DE & XE v SC [2024] NZDT 71 (15 January 2024) [pdf, 194 KB]

   ...agreed to purchase the vehicle. The question of whether the vehicle had been partially submerged or whether water had only got into the motor was critical for them. As noted above, they were aware that they had to replace the motor and it did not matter whether the motor had “died” due to water ingress or any other cause. However, if water had gotten into the interior of the vehicle this meant that it was no longer suitable for their intended purpose. 15. XE did not carry out a de...

3. NH v QM [2023] NZDT 487 (28 August 2023) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...the contract, and there was no evidence of any agreement that he would not have to pay the winners if he did not receive the money from the losers. 8. However, when deciding what relief (if any) to grant, the Tribunal must have regard to certain matters under CCLA s 78. In the case of a breach of an enactment, one of the relevant considerations is the object of the enactment and the gravity of the penalty expressly provided for any breach of the enactment. One of the objects of the GA is...

4. SX v A Ltd [2023] NZDT 462 (19 September 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...retailer of the basins, and another company, CD, was the manufacturer/importer of the basins. 9. A Ltd states that they did not ‘supply’ the basins to SX and are therefore not the supplier under the CGA because their only involvement in the matter was that one phone call to [building supplier]. 10. SX engaged [plumbing company] to install the replacement basins and that work was done at his own cost. 11. A Ltd says that they did not order or purchase the basins fr...

5. Fisher v Foster (Costs) [2020] NZHRRT 29 [pdf, 623 KB]

   ...flexible approach can be taken by the Tribunal to costs. See Andrews [60]. [8.2] There must be caution about applying the conventional civil costs regime in the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. See Andrews [61]. [8.3] The Tribunal has broad powers to do justice even if this means departing from the conventional rules applying to civil proceedings. See Andrews [62]. [8.4] The purpose of a costs order is not to punish an unsuccessful party. Access to the Tribunal should not be unduly deter...

6. Q Ltd v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 755 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...attempts to phone KC between 11.30am (the scheduled start time) and 11.45am. The calls went unanswered. 6. Where a party who has been given notice of the hearing fails to participate in the hearing the Disputes Tribunal can proceed and determine the matter on the evidence available to it1. 7. NC submitted that: a. Q Ltd quoted $1,725.00 for the job. 1 Section 42, Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 b. T Ltd considered that the quoted price w...

7. D Ltd v O Ltd [2024] NZDT 321 (18 April 2024) [pdf, 109 KB]

   ...raised this defence and provided documents in support of this position on 10 April 2024 and the applicant has not been given an opportunity to provide documents of its own defending the respondent’s claim. I do not consider it in the interests of justice to further delay this matter to allow the respondent to file a counterclaim or to give the applicant time to defend this new cause of action now raised by the respondent. [14] On that basis, and given the respondent admits the amount i...

8. QC v S Ltd [2024] NZDT 549 (19 July 2024) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...helpful in determining the issue. 10. There was discussion about whether the shop responded to calls or whether QC had made the calls, and whether there had been requests about allowing further time to search video records, but none of these matters are particularly relevant to the question of what evidence there is about the presence or absence of the wrench in the box. What weighs with me is on the one hand QC’s clear evidence that upon returning home and checking the list, the w...

9. GX v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 641 (3 September 2024) [pdf, 211 KB]

   ...place, however whether that was as a result of previous advice given by GX, or some other reason is unclear. The call taker nevertheless advised GX any tow would have to be at his own cost before the tow was arranged. GX advised he would follow the matter up later. 11. On the basis of GX’s understanding of the calls above, GX claims J Ltd should compensate him for the cost of the tow. GX states choice was removed by the advice given, as if he had known he did not have a policy he...

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

    ...Subpart 1 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) deals with carriage of goods. Under CCLA ss 248 and 249, the liability of a carrier for loss or damage to goods under a contract of carriage is determined by the kind of contract, which is a matter of agreement between the parties. A contract of carriage that does not purport to be of a particular kind, or purports to be of a particular kind but does not meet the requirements that apply to that kind, is a contract for carriage at...