Search Results

1. BD v DS Ltd [2020] NZDT 1504 (14 October 2020) [pdf, 134 KB]

   ...MPa at 8 months and didn’t). There is no evidence that on balance one could say it was one factor over another. It may have been a combination. 22. Accordingly, BD has not proved on balance that DS supplied under specification concrete. Other matters 23. There is no evidence that DS knowingly and deliberately supplied under specification concrete. There would appear to be no reason why DS would supply under strength concrete to rural businesses. 24. BD says there were credib...

2. KQ v FH [2022] NZDT 185 (25 October 2022) [pdf, 98 KB]

   ...(Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 185 APPLICANT KQ RESPONDENT FH The Tribunal orders: 1. KQ is to pay $350.00 to FH on or before 14 November 2022. Reasons: 2. This matter has been part heard and this order should be read in conjunction with the orders dated 11 May 2022 and 2 August 2022. 3. KQ and FQ entered into a contract for the hire of a mechanical bucking bull (“bull”) for the specific...

3. DS Ltd v I Ltd [2023] NZDT 565 (28 November 2023) [pdf, 181 KB]

   ...6. I Ltd submitted that NI’s CV was misleading, and that DS Ltd misrepresented NI’s abilities. However, misrepresentation or misleading conduct both require a false statement of past or present fact, whereas DS Ltd’s recommendation of NI was a matter of opinion or prediction based on the CV he presented. I Ltd did not point to any specific misrepresentation by DS Ltd, and the expressly agreed terms do not leave room to infer any misrepresentation merely from DS Ltd’s presentation o...

4. TN v HD [2023] NZDT 468 (16 August 2023) [pdf, 141 KB]

   ...and building on HD’s property. f. HD has provided some evidence of damage to the driveway resulting from stormwater from TN’s property concentrated and directed via the novacoil pipe. Solving this problem would be a relatively straightforward matter of extending the pipe to a lower point beyond the driveway. The current, inadequate, arrangement is an “act or omission” by TN that is causing damage to the driveway. However, HD’s counter-claim seeks the cost of digging out, r...

5. US Ltd v NH [2021] NZDT 1545 (16 September 2021) [pdf, 182 KB]

   ...evidence that he only cancelled the contract and requested a refund after the Roofer failed to remedy the issue within a reasonable time. I say this because I accept that the Roofer repeatedly fail to meet NH at the various agreed times to progress this matter, the last being 5 June, and I also accept that the Roofer’s posts on social media stating he would remove the roof if payment was not made are inconsistent with an intention to remedy. 11. Regardless, apart from the failure to...

6. BD v EX [2022] NZDT 293 (10 August 2022) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...7th September 2022. Reasons: 1. BD claims that EX did not build his deck correctly. He seeks a refund of $20,000 being the amount he paid to EX to build the deck and the cost of materials. 2. There have been in total 3 hearings of this matter, the 18 March, 4 May and the 27 July. BD and EX both attended the hearings of the 18 March and the 4 May, but only BD attended the hearing held on the 27 July. 3. Section 42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 allows the Tribunal to make...

7. MB & NB v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 99 (10 March 2023) [pdf, 155 KB]

   ...compensation; … (g) In making this offer, the Purchaser relied solely on its own judgment as to the structural integrity and repair status of the property, and has made or will make appropriate enquiries to satisfy itself with regard to those matters; …” 9. Thus, while I have found that G Ltd did make a misrepresentation regarding the property, MB and NB have essentially agreed to not rely on any representations made. They have also agreed that they are not entitled to a...

8. DX & QX v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 215 (27 April 2023) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...to comment on the significance that an insurer might attach to aspects of the report. He noted that the housing market tended to change over time, and that the attitude of insurers varied in regard to the importance of defects in buildings. These matters were not, he said, within his area of expertise. [9] DT observed that the two reports from structural engineers, described above, agreed that the uneven floors had not been caused by earthquake damage. The issue [10] The question f...

9. NW v B Ltd [2022] NZDT 145 (12 September 2022) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...as more of good will compensation for any inconvenience suffered due to the delay, and is unlikely to meet any lunch meal costs, I am unable to find an entitlement to damages due to the delay. 17. Due to the above, the matter of damages in point 6(b) above does not need to be considered and the claim is dismissed. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Referee: DTR Goddard Date: 12 September 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information fo...

10. X Ltd v L Ltd [2023] NZDT 104 (9 March 2023) [pdf, 186 KB]

    ...contract out of the Fair Trading Act 1986, the agreement in this case occurred after the misleading statements were made and therefore does not apply in this situation. 17. While parties are, in general, entitled to reach their own resolution of matters, where a claim is brought to the Tribunal, the Tribunal must look at what the law provides. For these reasons, I find that X Ltd is entitled to $1,380.00 (being the cost of freighting the tractor back) from L Ltd. Was there a misr...