Search Results

1. SX Ltd v RO Ltd [2021] NZDT 1554 (11 August 2021) [pdf, 244 KB]

   ...item. I have also considered the invoicing which I note clearly separates out the proportion of the total cost from the weekly scaffolding charges. 11. I have also considered the evidence of RO Ltd’s witness FF, who gave evidence that they performed the removal of the asbestos roof and then gave evidence that there had been delays due to weather and a Health and Safety stoppage. The witness stated that the scaffolding that was installed under the directions of SX Ltd was utilised dur...

2. EJ v BC [2020] NZDT 1431 [pdf, 215 KB]

   ...there was no contributory negligence on his part. EJ's costs were not disputed and, as they were supported by evidence, his claim is therefore awarded in full. Referee: J Perfect Date: 6 August 2020 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

3. P Ltd v Q Ltd [2021] NZDT 1643 (8 October 2021) [pdf, 145 KB]

   ...Ltd’s [vehicle] at an agreed price of $9890.00 including GST. 2. P Ltd claims $4,375.00 for the balance of the unpaid invoice of $3500.00 and collection costs of $875.00. 3. Q Ltd counter-claims $5000.00 as a refund for illegal work performed and to recover the cost of his original factory rims and tyres. 4. The issues to be determined are: a. What were the terms of the contract, and did Q Ltd breach the terms of the contract by failing to pay, or did P Ltd breach the...

4. UC & FC v GM [2021] NZDT 1645 (15 November 2021) [pdf, 221 KB]

   ...NZSC 53 (Honey Bees) the Supreme Court said that: “A clause stipulating a consequence for a breach of a term will be an unenforceable penalty if the consequence is out of all proportion to the legitimate interests of the innocent party in performance of the primary obligation” and “Determining whether or the impugned clause is an unenforceable penalty requires an objective exercise of construction, notionally undertaken at the time of the contract formation, and by refere...

5. EN v CQ Ltd [2022] NZDT 51 (17 January 2022) [pdf, 174 KB]

   ...Tribunal orders: GQ Ltd is to pay $495.50 to EN by 5 February 2022. Background 1. EN lives in [Town]. He purchased a second-hand TV from a seller in [City]. The seller assisted EN by arranging transport of the TV with GQ Ltd. GQ Ltd was informed by the seller that the seller was not paying for the transport of the TV and that a final decision about transport would be made by the purchaser of the TV. 2. An invoice for payment was sent by GQ Ltd to EN and the TV was transp...

6. OX v ND [2022] NZDT 62 (29 June 2022) [pdf, 111 KB]

   ...allow, and which is a very common and well understood use of a bond in New Zealand. 14. The claim is therefore dismissed. Referee: M Wilson CI0301_CIV_DCDT_Order Page 3 of 4 Date: 29 June 2022 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a...

7. DN & EN v R Ltd [2023] NZDT 725 (13 December 2023) [pdf, 94 KB]

   ...$26,352.00 from R Ltd. [2] EN spoke for herself and her husband. She said that they had booked flights that were to leave [City] on 12 May 2023. Their intention was to attend a wedding in [Country 1]. When they arrived at [City] airport, they were informed by a R Ltd official at check-in that they lacked the required visas to enter [Country 1], and could not board the flight. EN and her husband explained to the official that they both had dual nationality, being citizens of [Country 2]...

8. UN v CD Ltd & CD [2023] NZDT 663 (16 October 2023) [pdf, 112 KB]

   ...6. However, CD gave evidence that the existing pipes were not on the Council’s GIS when the plans were first drawn up. He said that a camera sent down could only take photos of the pipes but could not provide enough conclusive evidence or information to prove whether or not the pipes would meet Council’s current standards in order to have the resource consent approved. CD said that regardless of whether he thought the pipes were in good condition or not, he could not prove that t

9. OE v UC [2023] NZDT 47 (8 February 2023) [pdf, 129 KB]

   ...reasons and the full details of why she believes that OE owes her money for the series of motorbike dealings. As mentioned in that order, if UC failed to do that the hearing would proceed without the Tribunal being able to consider this defence. No information was received from UC and so the Tribunal has been unable to consider this defence. 6. The issue to be resolved is whether OE paid UC $750.00 in July 2021. Did OE pay UC $750.00 in July 2021? 7. OE provided evidence to the T...

10. HF Ltd v Q Ltd [2024 NZDT 229 (12 March 2024) [pdf, 99 KB]

    ...find it is not appropriate to make such an order, particularly given the costs incurred by the Respondent to seek payment for the initial panels supplied. Referee: A Chand Date: 12th March 2024 Page 4 of 4 Information for Parties Rehearings You can apply for a rehearing if you believe that something prevented the proper decision from being made: for example, the relevant information was not available at the time. If you wish to apply for a r...