Search Results

1. D Ltd v KG [2024] NZDT 323 (15 May 2024) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...the work was practically completed on 26 July 2023, the applicant invoiced the respondent $10,643.24. The respondent paid this amount in full and uplifted his vessel. The insurer reimbursed the respondent $6,954.623 and the respondent considered the matter at an end having accepted $3,688.63 as his cost of the uninsured work. [5] On 8 August 2023, the applicant issued a further invoice, invoice number 04710 in the amount of $6,412.59. The applicant claims additional work was authorised b...

2. N Ltd v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 341 (25 May 2024) [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...When N Ltd did file a claim, T Ltd waived the breach notice fee and informed the Tribunal that there was no longer any dispute. This is a departure from the previous statement indicating that a Disputes Tribunal hearing was necessary to resolve the matter. 10. Where a person has suffered a loss or damage caused by the conduct (in contravention of a relevant section including s13) of another party the Tribunal may make an order under s 43 (2). That order may direct a party to the amou...

3. NI v Q Ltd [2024] NZDT 407 (4 April 2024) [pdf, 200 KB]

   ...Law Act 2017 (“CCLA”) deals with contracts for the carriage of goods. Under ss 248 and 249 CCLA the liability of a carrier for loss or damage to goods under a contract of carriage is determined by the kind of contract. The kind of contract is a matter of agreement between the parties, as long as particular requirements are met. 16. In this case it appears that the contract was for carriage at owner’s risk. Section 250 CCLA sets out the requirements and states: 250 Requiremen...

4. XH v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 410 (2 May 2024) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...perform it, any expenditure incurred by any party in, or for the purpose of, performing the contract, any benefit or advantage obtained by a party because of anything done by another party in, or for the purpose of, performing the contract, and any other matters that the Tribunal thinks proper. 10. I find a fair outcome to be that XH compensates T Ltd $287.50 for the time that it spent prior to the contract being cancelled. This is for the following reasons: a. T Ltd had not perform...

5. SM v BN & NN [2024] NZDT 387 (5 June 2024) [pdf, 192 KB]

   ...without a WOF SM was taking the risk that something might occur that would prevent the car getting a WOF. The car did not have a WOF at the time it was advertised, but the advertisement said that it would have a WOF prior to purchase. It does not matter whether BN or SM first suggested that SM buy the car without the WOF in exchange for a reduction in price. Once SM agreed to do so, I consider that she also took on the risk that there was something wrong with the car that would prevent...

6. EF v TB [2024] NZDT 617 (12 September 2024) [pdf, 100 KB]

   ...reasonable to recognise the value of the tools and materials at the date of the accident. I accordingly order TB to pay EF the sum of $2367.11 for tools. 14. EF has claimed an additional amount for stress, however, although resolution of this matter has been prolonged, I do not find any compensation for stress justified in this situation. Referee: DTR Edwards Date: 12 September 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply...

7. OT v XQ Ltd [2024] NZDT 619 (22 August 2024) [pdf, 186 KB]

   ...and overdue and for which he had received no notice. OT agreed he should pay something but indicated that he considered the total amount out of proportion. XQ Ltd did not reduce the amount. OT filed a claim in the Disputes Tribunal to resolve the matter. 2. This is a claim for a declaration of non-liability of up to $6,615.00 for parking tickets accumulated but not communicated to OT by XQ Ltd. 3. The issues to be determined are as follows: a. Is the fine of $6,615.00 or a...

8. XM v MK & NK [2024] NZDT 559 (5 August 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

   ...when NK was involved in the sale and did not stop the sale. That said, I accept NK did not want to sell the boat but by his actions, as a half owner, he consented to the sale of the boat. Any dispute about the distribution of the sale proceeds is a matter completely separate to the sale and XM’s rightful ownership of [Boat]. Is XM entitled to reject the boat and receive a refund of the $22,000.00 he paid for the boat? 12. Section 37 of the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 allow...

9. LL v KE [2024] NZDT 610 (16 July 2024) [pdf, 135 KB]

   ...Tribunal as a witness, make an appearance. The absence of a party does not prevent the hearing going ahead. 3. The issues to be resolved are: a. Were any of the following a misrepresentation? Did LL have knowledge of the true state of these matters prior to purchasing the van? i. A message from KE saying that there were ‘no rust/leaks.’ ii. A message from LL saying ‘I can pick up even now as long as there is no issue.’ iii. The photos of the van only showed parts of it....

10. BG v P Ltd [2024] NZDT 638 (2 September 2024) [pdf, 144 KB]

    ...our e-mail below, your complaint was sent to NX for comments. The complaint and NX’s response were reviewed by Council’s Deputy Registrar - Protection, Dr BH. Dr BH has decided that the Dental Council will be taking no further action on this matter, as he is of the opinion that NX followed appropriate procedures and provided appropriate care”. 14. I am not satisfied that BG has proved on the balance of probabilities (more likely than not) that the services provided and the resu...