Search Results

1. AS Ltd v ZH Ltd [2014] NZDT 659 (26 September 2014) [pdf, 20 KB]

   ...has written under the pricing details “fix price for 12 months”. AS Limited’s manager agrees that that was written on the document she signed. [3] On 30 April 2014, when AS Limited was moving premises, AA signed another service agreement form recording the new address. [4] AS Limited contends that they only ever intended to enter into a month by month agreement and that their manager, AA, was misled into signing the agreement and that the document itself is misleading. AS Li...

2. L Ltd v UT [2022] NZDT 266 (16 December 2022) [pdf, 167 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 2 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2022] NZDT 266 APPLICANT L Ltd RESPONDENT UT The Tribunal orders: UT is to pay the sum of $850.00 to L Ltd on or before Monday 16 January 2023. Reasons: 1. On 1 August 2022, UT (the customer) signed a six-month Membership Agreement with L Ltd (the gym). The membership fee was $170.00 per month. The customer signed a form to pa...

3. D Ltd v BQ & GN [2023] NZDT 27 (7 June 2023) [pdf, 91 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 27 APPLICANT D Ltd FIRST RESPONDENT BQ SECOND RESPONDENT GN The Tribunal orders: The application is dismissed. Summary of Reasons: [1] The hearing was convened by teleconference. BQ did not appear, the applicant’s representative and GN did. [2] The applicant claims payment for tiling work carried out...

4. MI v T Ltd [2023] NZDT 102 (10 March 2023) [pdf, 114 KB]

   ...was delivered on 23 December 2022 MI immediately determined that the machine protruded far beyond the space, and, in fact, measured closer to 720mm in depth than the described 650mm. 3. MI sought to return the machine to T Ltd who declined his request, treating it as a ‘change of mind’. The claim is therefore for the purchase price of the machine of $1394.35 plus $270.00 consequential losses of storage and/or laundromat time and expenses. 4. T Ltd did not provide a representativ...

5. KU v KG Ltd [2023] NZDT 18 (27 January 2023) [pdf, 195 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL District Court [2023] NZDT 18 APPLICANT KU RESPONDENT KG Ltd The Tribunal orders: KG Ltd is to pay $2,500.00 to KU on or before Monday 13 February 2023. Reasons: 1. KU was gifted a voucher for a 10 hour, private big game charter in the Bay of Islands for up to four guests as a birthday present. The voucher expired on 17 September 2022, howe...

6. B Ltd v KS [2022] NZDT 256 (21 December 2022) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...having only the first truckload of waste taken away, given that was the amount the price he had been given was based on, he would have done that because it was uneconomic for the truck to come back for only a half-load of waste. B Ltd says they were requested to empty the septic tank and that is what they did. 5. B Ltd’s position would be reasonable contractually if the price had increased only in proportion to the amount of waste taken away. However, because returning to remove onl...

7. UC v K Ltd [2024] NZDT 426 (17 June 2024) [pdf, 188 KB]

   ...he is claiming a refund for? b. Can he make a claim for the amounts under the [international legislation] and the contract with K Ltd? c. What if anything is payable to him? Has UC paid any of the amounts he is claiming a refund for? 5. UC claims that he is entitled to what he describes as a repayment of the passenger movement charges which were payable for the travel from [Country 2] to [Country 1], which appears to have been $NZ60.00 for 59 flights, amounting to $NZ3,540.00. U...

8. AAX and AAY as Trustees of AP Trust v ZZF Ltd [2010] NZDT 18 (13 August 2010) [pdf, 87 KB]

   IN THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2010] NZDT 18 BETWEEN AAX AND FIRST APPLICANT AAY SECOND APPLICANT AND ZZF RESPONDENT Date of Order: 13 August 2010 Referee: Referee Robertshawe ORDER OF THE DISPUTES TRIBUNAL The Tribunal hereby orders that ZZF Limited is to pay to AAX and AAY the sum of $1,025.52 on or before Friday, 20 August 2010. Facts [1] In 2006, AAX and AAY purchased an ins

9. B Ltd v OQ & ST [2024] NZDT 15 (23 January 2024) [pdf, 91 KB]

   CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 1 of 3 (Disputes Tribunal Act 1988) ORDER OF DISPUTES TRIBUNAL [2024] NZDT 15 APPLICANT B Ltd RESPONDENT OQ SECOND RESPONDENT ST The Tribunal orders: The claim is struck out. Reasons 1. The matter involves the recovery of a debt that KS, director of B Ltd, says is owed by OQ and ST in relation to electrical work carried out by B Ltd on their house at [address...

10. CEIT Annual Report 2022 [pdf, 446 KB]

    ...arising from the Canterbury earthquakes. The Tribunal has now had three years’ experience handling and resolving claims and has developed robust processes to resolve these, often difficult, disputes. [3] The Tribunal’s jurisdiction is limited, applications can only be considered if: (a) the applicant was an owner of the property at the time it was damaged by any of the earthquakes experienced in Canterbury between 4 September 2010 and 31 December 2011 (the sequence); (b) at t...