Search Results

1. AA v BB [2024] NZDT 80 (26 February 2024) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...especially in a domestic arrangement, that there was a mutual intention to create legal relations, that there were binding terms, and that the act done was in consideration of a promise to do or not do something in return. The onus of establishing these matters rests respectively on the party making the claim or the counterclaim. 7. BB acknowledged that AA gave him money to purchase the items claimed, with some minor discrepancies in the costs. However, his position was that these were...

2. D Ltd v M Ltd [2023] NZDT 731 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 hours spent on cleaning. When asked, D Ltd said they worked for 10 hours per week, but security data showed only 6 hours access to the centre. D Ltd claimed this was because 2 cleaners, not one, were doing the work. On this matter the evidence is not clear as to what the actual situation was. 8. On 9 and 10 May further follow up invoices were sent to D Ltd asking for a discussion about the cleaning standard. Eventually, M Ltd found and contracted a...

3. MT v UI [2022] NZDT 54 (9 May 2022) [pdf, 148 KB]

   ...the melted points at a consistent rough distance off the hedge line. S’s opinion was that the use of a hedge cutter would “be the culprit to melting the grass in the spots”. 8. Evidence from T Ltd, the loss adjuster used by X Ltd in this matter, is also consistent with the damage being caused by the hedge trimmers. That report concludes that the cause of the damage is heat from the motor of a petrol trimmer and that the damage is consistent with the event described by the insur...

4. ED Ltd v TQ Ltd [2023] NZDT 312 (27 July 2023) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...that a refund was payable. ED Ltd proposed that the original deposit be refunded with the disputed amount to be ‘decided in CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Court’. TQ Ltd sought to make repayment of the deposit amount the end of the matter. When ED Ltd did not agree to that, TQ Ltd should have refunded the deposit amount promptly. 15. For the above reasons, I find that TQ Ltd is liable to pay interest as per the Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 from 9 February 2023...

5. GT Ltd v SX & TX & EN Ltd [2022] NZDT 49 (27 January 2022) [pdf, 122 KB]

   ...decision to withhold the Polaris. In these circumstances, I find that he is jointly liable with the company to pay $1,100.00 for the wrongful detention of the Polaris. 13. The second respondent’s name did not appear in correspondence on this matter, and there is no evidence that she was personally involved in detaining the Polaris, so the claim against her is dismissed. Referee: E Paton-Simpson Date: 27 January 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information for...

6. U Ltd v KG Ltd [2024] NZDT 477 (6 June 2024) [pdf, 93 KB]

   ...little knowledge of the arrangement that TU had made with U Ltd. She said that she had been “vaguely aware” that TU was undertaking a project with U Ltd, but had not known of the details. She said that there had been no written agreement about the matter, and that KG Ltd’s records included nothing to indicate that a purchase order had been made in relation to it. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 3 She said that no work should have proceeded without a detailed purchase order havin...

7. QN v CI & EN [2024] NZDT 472 (4 June 2024) [pdf, 198 KB]

   ...parties at the hearing, I thought carefully about whether this claim is one that could be decided by the Tribunal. The jurisdiction of the Disputes Tribunal is contained in ss 10 and 11 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988. Claims that fall outside the matters listed are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, and other Acts may establish areas of jurisdiction for other courts or Tribunals, so as to exclude the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in certain cases. This includes applications und...

8. EI & MQ v M Ltd [2024] NZDT 485 (19 June 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 485 APPLICANT EI APPLICANT MQ RESPONDENT M Ltd The Tribunal orders: 1. M Ltd is to pay EI and MQ $6,000.00 on or before 19 July 2024. 2. The remainder of the claim is dismissed. Reasons Introduction 1. EI and MQ purchased a [Queen mattress], split queen base, a mattress protector, [brand] silk pillow including delivery and installat

9. DB Ltd v UC [2024] NZDT 449 (7 May 2024) [pdf, 222 KB]

   ...formed; c. BC was the only person involved in the dealings between the Motel and UC who appeared before the Tribunal. DM did not. I have accepted BC’s evidence as true – he spoke in a forthright manner and did not overstate his position on matters in dispute. His evidence was consistent with all written evidence filed. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of his evidence that a booking was made; d. Although it was suggested by UC that the invoice was not sent, as the Motel can...

10. Q Ltd v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 437 (16 May 2024) [pdf, 95 KB]

    ...tenant’s branding removed, some unfixed chattels were to be left behind, the TV brackets were to be left on the walls, and there was no make-good work required. The tenant handed back the keys to the landlord, and assumed that was the end of the matter. 5. However, more than three months later, W wrote to the landlord changing its position and demanding remedial work. The landlord completed that work, and wrote to the (now-former) tenant on 7 December 2023 to demand payment for the mak...