Search Results

1. BD & NT v S Ltd & C Ltd [2024] NZDT 769 (4 October 2024) [pdf, 105 KB]

   ...to replace the driveway ranging from $10,202.52 to $14,708.50 including GST. However, the clients raised a number of issues with these, including that they only covered the driveway and not the path or slab or utilities, were based on incomplete information, and appeared to be provided at “mates’ rates” by friends of the subcontractor. Also, the respondents’ quotations were based on machine removal, but this would not be possible for the path and would involve a risk of damage to t...

2. IN & TN v D Ltd [2024] NZDT 446 (23 April 2024) [pdf, 197 KB]

   ...comparing IN and TN’s finished property with one that didn’t have the compromising changes to the yard and wardrobe space, given the permanent loss of amenity. Referee Perfect Date: 23 April 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 re...

3. GO & NO v P Ltd [2025] NZDT 163 (13 May 2025) [pdf, 199 KB]

   ...is) not unusual. Accounts do not have to be set up ‘in store’. In the modern world consumers expect the convenience of setting up an account online or over the phone. 16. KD explained that if an account applicant provides driver’s license information as identification, the way that P Ltd verified the identification was that it was checked against the NZTA database. 17. This process would identify if a person used false (made-up) information, but it cannot identify if a person...

4. JB v BL [2025] NZDT 226 (11 June 2025) [pdf, 103 KB]

   ...firstly he says BL did not install a new cylinder head, contrary to what was agreed. 11. Secondly, JB in effect claims that the failure of the engine alone, so relatively soon following the repair is itself a sign of the service not having been performed with reasonable care and skill. 12. I note that the refurbishment was carried out in May 2023. On the evidence before me, it is clear BL had advised JB to change the radiator too, but JB did not want to do so, being unable to affor...

5. QH Ltd v XD Ltd [2022] NZDT 98 (1 September 2022) [pdf, 138 KB]

   ...(‘CCLA’)? • What is payable by XD Ltd, if anything, under the contract? Did XD Ltd accept the goods provided by QH Ltd as per the Sale of Goods provisions in the Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (‘CCLA’)? 9. As soon as the contract was formed, the boxes became the property of XD Ltd, irrespective of the arrangement to deliver some or all of the boxes at a later date (as per section 146 of the CCLA). 10. Section 170(1)(b) and (c) of the CCLA provides that:- �...

6. W Ltd vJ Ltd & ZD [2025] NZDT 252 (17 June 2025) [pdf, 187 KB]

   ...pay W Ltd? Is J Ltd contractually liable to pay the invoice? 5. A contract exists where two parties make promises to each other to exchange something of value. ZD, as the director of J Ltd, completed and signed a Credit Account Application Form with W Ltd and signed W Ltd’s Terms of Trade in October 2023 (Terms). The Terms set out the terms of the contract between J Ltd and W Ltd. 6. W Ltd advised that J Ltd has purchased goods from W Ltd over a number of years. W Ltd invoi...

7. Godinich v Guan Thye Heng Co Ltd [pdf, 97 KB]

   ...Room Deck – Waterproof Membrane 4.4.1 The drawings show that this deck was to be constructed with timber joists, spanning from a wall plate fixed to the external wall of the house to a double beam on timber posts. The deck surface was to be formed by 18 mm plywood with a waterproof membrane dressed up 150 mm on all sides. This is what the designer wanted, although waterproofing would not be a requirement of the Building Code. 4.4.2 The deck has been tiled with large reconst...

8. LCRO 162/2018 BQ v XR (29 September 2020) [pdf, 267 KB]

   ...his position was better protected and put him less at risk of the terms of the separation being vulnerable to later challenge. [78] I think it reasonable for Mr BQ to have adopted that view. His approach presents as conventional. Mr BQ had formed a view that terms of the earlier s 21 agreement were favourable to Mr XR, and that he thought it prudent to ensure that the terms of a final settlement were properly recorded in a s 21A agreement. His decision to take steps to formalis...

9. T v Mudaliar [2015] NZIACDT 79 (06 August 2015) [pdf, 241 KB]

   ...referral under s 48 of the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 BY The Registrar of Immigration Advisers Registrar BETWEEN E B T Complainant AND Viveg Lingam Mudaliar Adviser THE NAME AND ANY INFORMATION IDENTIFYING THE COMPLAINANT IS NOT TO BE PUBLISHED DECISION REPRESENTATION: Registrar: Ms S Blick, lawyer, MBIE, Auckland. Complainant: In person Adviser: Mr N King, Lawyer, Auckland. Date Issued:...

10. TO Ltd v DD Ltd [2019] NZDT 1462 (11 December 2019) [pdf, 196 KB]

    ...show that the buyer relies on the seller’s skill and judgment, and the goods are of a description that it is in the course of the seller’s business to supply. 5. With the proposal DD LTD provided a page entitled Conditions of Sale, and an information sheet on testing packaging and products. 6. The conditions of sale include a subheading “fit for purpose” which states: “we do not warrant the goods supplied to be compatible with any particular product or manufacturing