Search Results

1. B Ltd v UT & QT [2024] NZDT 714 (28 August 2024) [pdf, 107 KB]

   ...If so, whether UT and QT have breached the agreement by non-payment? • What if any, is payable to B Ltd? Whether there was a legally binding contract between the parties that required UT and QT to pay B Ltd $17,000.00? 3. The common law of contract allows parties to enter into contracts that are legally binding. A contract can be written or formed verbally or inferred from the parties’ conduct. 4. B Ltd said that they had signed a settlement agreement with UT and QT...

2. NT v T Ltd [2024] NZDT 715 (4 November 2024) [pdf, 193 KB]

   ...online traders such as T Ltd. They sell about 1,000 items per day. To ask each person what they intended to do would take a huge amount of time. 13. I agree with TL. What NT suggests puts an obligation on a seller which is far beyond that which the law requires. As there is no statement that the coilover kit would result in a street legal kit, T Ltd had no obligation to ensure what NT purchased would allow his car to be used on the road. Did T Ltd make any representations to NT ab...

3. NE v Accident Compensation Corporation (Late filing to the District Court) [2024] NZACC 200 (2 December 2024) [pdf, 149 KB]

   ...been referred by the Registry to a Judge for determination and the application has not been determined”. [6] On 29 November 2024, the Registry sent the appellant’s late filing application to the present Judge for a decision. Relevant law [7] Section 151 of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 (the Act) provides: (1) An appellant brings an appeal by sending a notice of appeal to, or filing a notice of appeal in, a specified registry. ... (3) The notice must be received...

4. T Ltd v ND [2024] NZDT 739 (22 August 2024) [pdf, 187 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 739 APPLICANT T Ltd RESPONDENT ND The Tribunal orders: ND is to pay T Ltd the sum of $2,586.25 on or before 11 September 2024. Reasons 1. ND decided to sell her house by auction using the services of QX of T Ltd. QX is a director and represented T Ltd at the hearing. Very much at the eleventh hour, ND had a change of heart an

5. QG v EK [2024] NZDT 737 (13 September 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   ...by teleconference, however pursuant to section 42 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 the Tribunal is entitled to rely on the available evidence. 6. The sole issue to be determined is whether QG is entitled to the sum claimed? 7. The common law of contract applies. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept QG’s account of the agreements reached and what occurred subsequently, as set out in paragraphs one to three above. So, I find that she is entitled to the sum claimed...

6. BI v N Ltd [2024] NZDT 749 (8 October 2024) [pdf, 225 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 749 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT N Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. This is a claim for the sum of $3,299.01 for a refund of a N Ltd stainless steel [gas cooktop]. 2. I note that a hearing took place on 7 August 2024 and was adjourned to allow for a N Ltd technician to visit the applicant’s premises t

7. PI v B Ltd [2024] NZDT 745 (22 October 2024) [pdf, 191 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 745 APPLICANT PI RESPONDENT B Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons: 1. PI purchased [a spa] from B Ltd on 15 May 2020. The purchase price was $11,995. 2. On or around July 2024, PI says a fault occurred with spa and it stopped heating the water. He contacted B Ltd for repairs and was advised that the spa was

8. U Ltd v J Ltd [2024] NZDT 762 (11 December 2024) [pdf, 121 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 762 APPLICANT U Ltd RESPONDENT J Ltd The Tribunal orders: The claim is dismissed. Reasons [1] U Ltd, represented by director LM, claims from J Ltd, represented by QC, the sum of $10,750.00. U Ltd considers that J Ltd has not made full payment of what is due under a policy that it held with J Ltd. [2] The policy is question was for r

9. NN v EE [2024] NZDT 736 (14 October 2024) [pdf, 177 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 736 APPLICANT NN RESPONDENT EE The Tribunal orders: EE is to pay the sum of $1,583.50 to NN on or before 4 November 2024. Reasons: 1. On 11 June 2024, NI made a booking on behalf of two families through [website] to stay at a property owned by EE at [address], from 28 to 30 June 2024 for $1,483.50, paid in advance. The families arr

10. BI v O Inc [2024] NZDT 725 (21 October 2024) [pdf, 164 KB]

    CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 4 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 725 APPLICANT BI RESPONDENT O Inc The Tribunal orders: The claim by BI is dismissed. Reasons 1. BI was a member of the O Inc. From 2022, he became unhappy with the views and services being provided by O Inc. He began voicing these concerns. Ultimately, after a series of complaints and counter-complaints, BI was expelled from O Inc.