From 3 June 2025 the Employment Court will start publishing its judgments from 24 hours after the delivery date, or the next business day, unless otherwise directed by a judge. Decisions of public interest may be published earlier, as directed by a judge.

You can search by selecting a jurisdiction, a keyword (for example a name) or browse by year.

Some jurisdictions only publish a selection of decisions. Identifying details may be removed.

Search results for costs.

3069 items matching your search terms

  2. DF v VU [2014] NZDT 677 (8 September 2014) [PDF, 20 KB]

    Contract / Contractual Remedies Act 1979 / Applicant purchased a truck from Respondent / Applicant claimed $15,000 for cost of repairs to the truck, COF inspection fee, insurance and registration / Held: fact that Respondent told Applicant a much higher mileage not misleading but a false statement / case paints picture of Applicant as someone who was inexperienced and ill-prepared to operate a truck as owner-driver / Respondent had no particular obligation to direct Applicant to the appropriate pre-purchase inspection place or to explain road user charges / insufficient evidence damage existed at the time truck was sold / Applicant was not induced into entering the contract from false statement about truck’s mileage / claim dismissed.
  5. CT v XH 2014 NZDT 736 (2 September 2014) [PDF, 120 KB]

    Negligence / car collision / actual cost of repairs to Applicant’s car $22,566.21 / Applicant claimed maximum amount claimable in Tribunal / Held: Respondent caused collision by failing to give way / duty of care on all drivers to drive to the standard of a reasonable and prudent driver / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Tribunal unable to find on the evidence that Applicant contributed to collision or extent of damage by driving too fast for conditions / undisputed costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $15,000
  17. AJ v ZQ Ltd [2014] NZDT 628 (18 July 2014) [PDF, 26 KB]

    Contract / insurance policy / Applicant was referred to an eye specialist to be tested and it was noted that he did have ocular hypertension / Applicant after joining Respondent returned to the optometrist for new glasses and further testing but was declined prior-approval on the basis that the interocular hypertension was a pre-existing condition and excluded from Applicant’s policy / Applicant claimed $1,535 being the costs related to testing and treatment / Held: based on the definition of “pre-existing condition” in Applicant’s contract of insurance, Respondent is entitled to exclude costs of treatment of interocular hypertension from cover / Applicant ought to have been aware that the specialist regarded him as having ocular hypertension / word “condition” broader than “disease” and encompasses something like ocular hypertension even if it is merely a statistical classification / claim dismissed.

You can try using these keywords to search the whole site.