Search Results

1. LU v LBI [2024] NZDT 119 (2 April 2024) [pdf, 203 KB]

   ...need to abandon the portion of her claim above $30,000.00. She said that at this stage she desired to make that compromise rather than have the claim determined for a larger amount in the District Court so that she could settle with LBI and for the matter to remain confidential. 12. I find that LU has proven that she is owed a greater amount than the jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal and therefore the amount of $30,000.00 is added to the amount of this order. 13. LU also cla...

2. BT v G Ltd [2023] NZDT 319 (19 June 2023) [pdf, 209 KB]

   ...and for an extensive period he clearly felt “on his own” and “unsupported by the respondent” in endeavouring to resolve or obtain some explanation for his situation. I have some sympathy for him about this. However, my jurisdiction in this matter is limited to ascertaining whether there was a breach by the respondent at the time the booking was made i.e., when the contract between the parties crystallised. I note at the hearing, that in response to BT’s comments, the respondent�...

3. NN v SG Ltd [2024] NZDT 111 (13 February 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...entitled to claim $4,999.00? What was the agreement for the repair of the ute? 4. The Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 applies to this case. When a person in trade supplies a service, that service comes with guarantees. The guarantee particular to this matter is the guarantee of price1. The guarantee of price provides that a consumer is not liable to pay the supplier more than a reasonable price for the service where the price for the service is not determined by contract, nor left to be d...

4. JL v N Ltd [2022] NZDT 76 (17 June 2022) [pdf, 157 KB]

   ...of the sale and purchase agreement and both apply in this case. 7. Section 362Q(4) of the Building Act 2004 provides that: “In any case in which it is asserted against a building contractor or an on-seller that this section applies, the matters referred to in subsection (1) are presumed unless the contrary is proven”, where subsection (1) applies if “the building work is defective” and “the defect is able to be remedied”. So unlike ordinary civil claims where...

5. EN v CQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 51 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...with the actual carrier after hearing from EN, GQ Ltd may have been able to establish whether the carrier went back to collect the TV. This would have given EN opportunity to track who came to his home to collect the TV. GQ Ltd did not follow up this matter because it believed it had no liability, the contract being at owner’s risk. 11. From the evidence I am satisfied that GQ Ltd has caused a loss for EN. The loss is the amount he paid for the TV and the cartage that he did not h...

6. EC v U Ltd [2023] NZDT 186 (13 June 2023) [pdf, 101 KB]

   ...number of challenges with U Ltd trying to get two appropriate policies in place for his property. He says U Ltd made a number of mistakes and that their service was awful. EC has provided a detailed timeline of his dealings with U Ltd. Some of the matters that EC complains about in his dealings with U Ltd include: a. Failure by U Ltd to apply an appropriate age discount. b. Failure to update their records regarding a change of legal address of the property. c. Failure to correctly cr...

7. BN & HH v KT & BB [2023] NZDT 402 (23 August 2023) [pdf, 228 KB]

   ...titles and so forth are in order. 14. Further, the agreement refers in clause 22 to the purchaser relying on their own judgement but read in its entirety refers to the structural integrity and watertightness of the building. 15. Further, as a matter of contractual interpretation, a requirement for due diligence does not mean that the warranties section has no force. 16. For these reasons I am satisfied that the applicants can rely on the warranties section in the agreement and a...

8. SU v F Ltd [2023] NZDT 266 (25 May 2023) [pdf, 108 KB]

   ...between mobility spaces and other violations, I find that neither the $200 maximum nor the $80 fee were disproportionate to F Ltd’s legitimate interests in enforcing the parking terms. The $80 fee is therefore enforceable. 10. It is a different matter whether the additional charges for late payment are enforceable. Clause 6 provides for additional “administration” charges of $60 after seven days, and $120 after 14 days. Although the fees charged in SU’s case were lower, the admini...

9. NN v C Ltd [2023] NZDT 410 (6 July 2023) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...his purchase. NN quickly discovered however that phone charging could not occur. 2. NN claims $13,484.00 being, a refund of his purchase price of $11,484.00, and $2,000.00 for legal costs and his own time and inconvenience in dealing with this matter. 3. C Ltd denies the claim saying no such assurance was given. It says NN had completed his purchase by the time any information about potential phone charging capabilities, or otherwise, could be provided to him. 4. The issues to b...

10. DN & EN v R Ltd [2023] NZDT 725 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 94 KB]

    ...particular. Rather, I consider that the lost day that resulted from R Ltd’s error is better dealt with as a reduction in the time that DN and EN had in [Country 1]. I have not allowed compensation for LN’s time, as he is not an applicant in this matter. [9] I consider that DN and EN are entitled to compensation for the inconvenience that they suffered as a result of being unable to board the flight that they had booked. They had to return to their home in [Town], having expected to...