Search Results

1. QN v C Ltd [2022] NZDT 209 (22 May 2022) [pdf, 216 KB]

   ...photographs provided show the clearcoat is lifting and exposing damaged paint. Ultimately the respondent admits that the paint has not lasted as long as expected and, on that basis alone, I am persuaded that the applicant is entitled to a remedy under the CGA. CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 5 What remedy is the applicant entitled to? [24] Under the Act a consumer is entitled to the reasonable cost of remedy and any reasonably foreseeable loss if a supplier breaches...

2. FN & NH v K Ltd & O Ltd [2023] NZDT 466 (25 August 2023) [pdf, 247 KB]

   ...caused a delay in issuing the ‘final’ resource consent, the question of when NH and FN would receive income from the project (by the sale of one of the lots) is affected by a wide range of factors that K Ltd could not foresee. 2 Section 32(c) CGA CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 5 of 6 NH and FN made their own decision to seek legal advice. d. Damages for stress and inconvenience are recoverable at law, particularly if the provision of enjoyment is the purpose, or part...

3. HN v FH Ltd [2021] NZDT 1576 (16 July 2021) [pdf, 243 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 5 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2021] NZDT 1576 APPLICANT HN RESPONDENT FH Limited The Tribunal orders: That the Application is dismissed. Reasons: 1.On the 3rd of January 2021, HN booked 3 tickets at @$175 each for a total $525 with FH Ltd (FH) to be an ”On the Water Spectator America’s Cup Match” for Saturday the 13th of March 2021 departing @

4. LCRO 201/2021 DK obo The LK Estate v BY and FM (31 July 2023) [pdf, 305 KB]

   ...forward by Mr DK has not been established and I am not satisfied that [[Law firm A]] managed things unreasonably. Overall, I am not satisfied that Mr BY’s handling of the visit to Mrs LK was unreasonable or amounted to a breach of contract or the CGA, or amounted to misleading or deceptive conduct under the FTA. The 25 explanations provided by Mr BY are reasonable and supported by his correspondence and file notes. Whilst Mr BY’s account is disputed by Mr DK and differs f...

5. Heng v Walshaw [pdf, 550 KB]

   CLAIM NO: 00734 UNDER The Weathertight Homes Resolution Services Act 2002 IN THE MATTER OF an adjudication BETWEEN JOHN MONTGOMERY HENG AND ANNE ELIZABETH HENG Claimants AND CHRISTOPHER WALSHAW AND MARGARET ANNE WALSHAW First respondents (Intituling continued next page) Appearances: Scott Galloway, counsel for the claimants Chris Walshaw, for the first respondents Tim Cleary, counsel for the second respondent John Morrison, co