Search Results

1. T Ltd v CS Ors [2021] NZDT 1552 (10 August 2021) [pdf, 236 KB]

   ...noted EH’s comments that CS and UT have suggested in correspondence that T Ltd ought to have paid for a new COF they obtained for the Trailer and should pay yard rental at $500.00 per day for the Trailer. However, I have no evidence regarding these matters, and they have not been taken into account when reaching my decision. 12. For these reasons, I find that C Ltd remains liable to T Ltd under the Contract for the amount owing under the Contract plus interest from 7 August 2019 to...

2. EF v G Ltd NZDT [2021] 1530 (24 February 2021) [pdf, 229 KB]

   ...of his commencement. 5. EF seeks a declaration that $1,847.00 is not due and owing by him to G Ltd. 6. G Ltd counterclaims $1,846.39 in repayment of the debt, including interest and debt collection costs. 7. The initial hearing for this matter was adjourned at the request of G Ltd because there had been insufficient time to review evidence it had filed prior to the hearing. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 2 of 7 8. EF did not attend the second hearing. The hearing proceeded...

3. WQ Ltd v ND Ltd [2020] NZDT 1323 (10 November 2020) [pdf, 152 KB]

   ...2020, I struck out ND’s counterclaim (filed on 29 June 2020). That counterclaim says WQ overcharged for the work done in relation invoice 2694 for $7,747.93. In my order of 10 July 2020 I said: I have struck out that claim because the subject matter of that claim was determined by the Building Disputes Tribunal on 30 March 2020 (section 17(2), Disputes Tribunal Act 1988). 3. It is useful to set out the timeline of the events which I have done as follows: a. 15 January 19 - The c...

4. BC v BB Ltd [2023] NZDT 376 (18 July 2023) [pdf, 113 KB]

   ...misrepresentation. Further, Silence will not usually amount to a misrepresentation unless it amounts to a half-truth (which is a statement that conveys only part of the truth, so that what is left unsaid makes what is said incorrect). It does not matter whether the misrepresentation is made innocently or fraudulently because the intention of the party who made the misrepresentation is not material to liability under s35(1)(a) of the CCLA or under the FTA. 16. BC says that the Projector...

5. RC v LUD Group Ltd [2021] NZDT 1380 (20 April 2021) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA 1993). During the hearing on 16th April 2021 RC withdrew this claim. In its submission sent to the Tribunal on 5th April 2021 LUD stated that it thought that RC’s CGA claim was frivolous as that it did not address in any way the matter at issue. I find that RC’s CGA claim was not frivolous, but was made with genuine intent as a result of his frustration at LUD being unable to quantify its fees and charges, however on reflection he felt this was adequately cover...

6. MZ v X Ltd [2023] NZDT 511 (16 October 2023) [pdf, 213 KB]

   ...wording of the warning on the booking page is probably sufficient for now bearing in mind the evidence about the low number of such cases of this particular problem. That is not to say that this requirement may not change in the future, or for that matter, even if it does, that it requires X Ltd to do more than amend the warning so it did comply. 14. I therefore find that X Ltd is not liable for the loss of the outgoing tickets bought by MZ. Did X Ltd breach the guarantee that servi...

7. TD v SS & UU [2023) NZDT 318 (20 July 2023) [pdf, 124 KB]

   ...up because the architect had not been paid, TD did not take immediate steps to cancel the contract. Rather, he endorsed, or confirmed, its continuation by agreeing to a variation of it a month later. This was because he hoped, having discussed the matter with SS, that SS’s assurance that money would shortly be forthcoming to pay the architect would be reliable. That this proved not to be so was not the fault of UU, who was not involved in these discussions. Nor, in my view, were SS’s u...

8. DE v FJ [2023] NZDT 746 (15 December 2023) [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...perform the contract in whole or in part, any expenditure incurred by a party for the purpose of performing the contract, the value of work performed under the contract, any benefit obtained because of work completed under the contract and any other matters I considers appropriate.1 22. DE’s accountant presented some calculations outlining the income DE expected to receive to the end of the contract on 31 May 2021. This was based on [dairying company] statements from 1 June 2020 to 3...

9. CS & KS v H Ltd [2023] NZDT 605 (13 November 2023) [pdf, 204 KB]

   ...foreseeable under the scope of the contract. 29. In this instance the costs claimed are for increased power costs from 18 September 2022 to 5 March 2023. I find that increased electricity costs are a reasonably foreseeable loss where the subject matter of the claim and cause of the breach is a failure of a component of a solar electricity system. 30. However, the increased electricity costs were only caused the breach for the period between 18 September 2022, and 27 October 2022....

10. F Ltd v KI Ltd [2024] NZDT 135 (15 April 2024) [pdf, 152 KB]

    ...and get pay rent”. I consider that this was F Ltd invoking the special condition and was notice of the suspension of rent payments. While it is accepted that the following delay was beyond KI Ltd ’s control, the special condition applies no matter what the cause of a leak is and does not have any contingency for fault. Therefore, I find that there was a delay between 30 January to 27 March 2023, a period of 8 weeks. 22. As I found a [19] above the parapet leaks were not dealt w...