Search Results

1. LT v NS [2023] NZDT 277 (2 August 2023) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...lawyer. He has not denied a meeting took place and discussion on the outstanding loan took place. Issues i) Has the application been filed out of time ii) Is the respondent liable under the loan agreement Issue 1 [9] This is a difficult matter. Both parties were very evasive, the respondent more so. However, I am satisfied the loans made in 2013 were indeed loans and both parties intended to be legally bound by the terms of their agreement. In reliance on their contract, the...

2. TC v F Ltd LM [2021] NZDT 1590 (12 August 2021) [pdf, 184 KB]

   ...The vehicle did not fail to meet the acceptable quality standard. What about the fact that LM also represented that it had a current warrant? 8. Having a current warrant is a legal requirement. LM is required to get the warrant and must as a matter of necessity inform TC that the requirement has been met. I do not accept TC’s view that this means that LM is guaranteeing the warrant is validly issued or that the vehicle is in fact road legal. That is not fair to LM who is not req...

3. TQ v EN [2023] NZDT 113 (2 June 2023) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...contract by not having [Dog] spayed by six months old? 6. I find, on the balance of probabilities, that EN did breach the contract by not having [Dog] spayed before she was six months old. This is because if EN had done so it would have been a simple matter to provide veterinary evidence of it to the Tribunal before the hearing, however EN did not do this. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 4 7. I have considered EN’s explanation that she believes that she gave [Dog] away before...

4. 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...

5. [2021] NZEmpC 213 Baylis v Chief Executive of the Porirua City Council [pdf, 191 KB]

   ...In opposing the application, the Porirua City Council submits that: (a) The length of the delay between 1 June 2021 and the filing of the challenge is significant and counts against leave being granted when considering the overall interests of justice. (b) The reasons given for failing to file the challenge within time do not justify leave being granted. (c) Ms Baylis’s history of delay counts against the exercise of the Court’s discretion to grant an extension of time fo...

6. HI v BC Ltd [2024] NZDT 198 (28 March 2024) [pdf, 102 KB]

   ...monetary order, with a condition that the amount ordered need not be paid if the tax invoice is signed. As HI will need to file her 2023 tax return promptly, it is not clear whether signing the tax invoice is now a viable option. However, that is a matter for her to pursue if it is. 18. The monetary alternative requested by HI is for reimbursement of the GST she will have to pay if the tax invoice is not signed. She provided a figure of $3,300.00 in the claim form. However, BC has...

7. VL v U Ltd & LF Ltd [2023] NZDT 671 (6 December 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...it was caused by U Ltd’s towing service or whether it is due to a lack of oil in the engine caused by the car overheating, or whether the issue was caused by LF Ltd’s removal and reinstallation of the transmission during repairs. 11. The matter was adjourned to enable the parties to provide independent expert evidence to support their claims. 12. Neither U Ltd nor LF Ltd were reachable for the hearing today, despite repeated attempts to phone them. Therefore, this hearing we...

8. ST P Ltd v D Ltd & R Ltd [2024] NZDT 3 (8 January 2024) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...seeks to reject the [vehicle] and claims $15,500.00. 2. D Ltd denies the claim. 3. R Ltd denies the claim because the policy ST has does not cover the failures. At the hearing, and after considering the policy it is clear it does not cover the matters claimed for. Therefore, the claim against R Ltd must be dismissed. 4. Towards the conclusion of the hearing of the claim ST told the Tribunal he had an accident in the [vehicle] since the filing of this claim and photos provided t...

9. QE v HN [2024] NZDT 212 (7 March 2024) [pdf, 92 KB]

   ...adequate. [7] HN was of the view that it would have been obvious to QE that the ground level was higher on his, HN’s side, and that QE should not, having observed this, proceeded to demolish the existing fence. When QE had approached him about the matter, HN had asked that the existing fence be put back as it had been. [8] HN said that he had never agreed to pay a contribution towards replacing the fence, or any part of it, and he denied any liability for the sum that QE claimed....

10. SN v K Ltd [2022] NZDT 117 (15 August 2022) [pdf, 108 KB]

    ...was a shared cost and she could claim 50% for the other owner. After the retaining wall was completed, SN approached K Ltd for a 50% share of the fence which was $1,656.05. However, K Ltd only agreed to pay $1000.00 which SN did not accept and the matter remains unresolved. 2. SN claims $5,802.70 calculated as; $3,086.30 for the full cost of the retaining wall, $1,656.05 for 50% of the cost of the fencing, $932.65 for legal fees and $127.00 for interest. 3. The issues to be decided...