Search Results

1. 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...

2. X School v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 338 (13 July 2023) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...that DC had talked down to DG. 29. DC refuted the claim that he had been bullying or that he had harassed DG. He said that he had acted professionally, and that DG had met with him on his own on two other occasions and not complained until the matter came before the Disputes Tribunal. He said that X had a robust system for lodging complaints and that DG could have approached any number of people to complain. 30. QX, the principal of X School was present at the Tribunal and had been...

3. KK v OW Ltd [2022] NZDT 179 (6 October 2022) [pdf, 128 KB]

   ...care. 17. I accept that Dr S’s discussion around euthanasia would have been distressing and, given the differing advice from the two vets, it might have been tactful for UW Ltd to discount his attendance on 9 March. However, I cannot find as a matter of law that it was required to do so. Therefore, the balance owing on the bill is payable in full. 18. Because UW Ltd has not provided evidence that KK was notified about terms and conditions relating to interest before the servic...

4. N Ltd v BS & TS [2023] NZDT 164 (9 May 2023) [pdf, 183 KB]

   ...value of the improvements in this case and, in any event, improvement is the very purpose of the work. N Ltd says there were too many sundries to quantify. However, a limited range of material would have been used. 13. In relation to the other matters mentioned by N Ltd, this was a straightforward job that did not involve any unusual factors that would justify a higher than normal price. The work consisted of replacing the box gutter and roof on a single garage, adding purlins and rep...

5. FT v MU & T Ltd & U Ltd [2023] NZDT 470 [pdf, 227 KB]

   ...my satisfaction on the evidence provided) such is not a defence to this claim as: a. The shipping costs for the FT container have not been paid. b. If AB has breached that contract by not paying the FT container shipping costs, that is a legal matter between T LTD and AB arising out of that separate agreement which Mr FT was not part of. c. It does remove T LTD’s primary liability to Mr FT to pay for the shipping costs of the FT container after receiving full payment for those sh...

6. ZS & U Ltd v NU Ltd [2022] NZDT 73 (24 March 2022) [pdf, 169 KB]

   ...contacted to pick it up. Here, it is clear ZS had been contacted about collecting her car but did not. That means that AEG v ZVP Ltd, while similar, has different facts from the current claim so that I am able to come to a different conclusion on this matter. Conclusion 13. Given my conclusion above that NU Ltd took reasonable care, it is not necessary to also consider whether the bailment had come to an end at the time the damage occurred, or to consider any possible remedy....

7. UN Ltd v MI [2023] NZDT 205 (13 April 2023) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...“cannot take on a huge loss”. 7. Further UN took no affirmative action, following MI’s direct payment into their bank account, that would cause MI to have thought her offer of full and final payment was being accepted, rather referred the matter to their lawyer to follow up, which the lawyer did in December 2021, writing to MI. Based on all the above, I find there was no meeting of the parties’ minds that MI’s payment had been made in full satisfaction of the claim and so UN...

8. ST v WJ Ltd [2021] NZDT 1702 (22 December 2021) [pdf, 179 KB]

   ...substantially incorrect and material. The information about the applicant’s previous dishonestly offences would be considered material by a prudent insurer and must be disclosed before a policy is entered into. A person’s criminal history is material in matters of insurance and would influence a prudent insurer in fixing the premium or accepting the terms of the risk. [9] I also note that as the insurer cancelled the contract, the applicant is entitled to a refund of premiums paid. Th...

9. FL v C Ltd [2023] NZDT 248 (30 June 2023) [pdf, 185 KB]

   ...dresses. No documents to support the claim were filed with the claim and FL checked “No” on the claim form to the question as to whether she had further documents to file. 9. The hearing date was postponed twice due to FL’s unavailability. The matter was finally heard on 14 June 2023. Despite numerous requests and numerous promises to provide her evidence, FL did not produce any evidence to support her claim until 13 June 2023, the day before the hearing, and only to the Tribun...

10. OX v QT Ltd [2021] NZDT 1671 (16 August 2021) [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...notice also advised that if $170.00 was not paid additional costs would be incurred. 2. OX advised QT that he had not received the earlier notice. He paid $95.00 and advised QT that the payment was made on the basis that he hoped that would end the matter. He then received a notice on 4 June from [CD] to pay $288.75. 3. OX seeks a declaration that he is not liable to pay any further monies to QT. His claim was amended to include the $288.75 for breach fees being claimed by QT via...