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.

2970 items matching your search terms

  2. [2013] NZEmpC 158 Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [PDF, 102 KB]

    Gapuzan v Pratt & Whitney Air New Zealand Services t/a Christchurch Engine Centre [2013] NZEmpC 158 [Interlocutory Judgment of Judge A A Couch, 29 August 2013] Successful application by the defendant for striking out of second amended statement of claim, and unsuccessful application for security for costs.  Parts of statement of claim seeking remedy under the Health and Safety in Employment Act 1992 and s 17 of the Limitation Act 2010 are struck out for lack of jurisdiction.   No order for security for costs is made as the plaintiff has demonstrated his willingness to meet a significant order for payment from the Authority in the past and, despite his residence in Australia, the enforcement of judgments remains possible.  Costs reserved. 
  11. AET Ltd v ZVB Ltd [2013] NZDT 196 (3 August 2013) [PDF, 54 KB]

    Contract / Construction Contracts Act 2003 / Applicant supplied and fixed sealant to the joints in Respondent’s building / Respondent paid 75 per cent of invoice but refused to pay remainder as it found the sealant in one joint was not deep enough and believed it was not applied to the correct depth in other parts of the building / Applicant remedied problem by applying more sealant to that joint / Applicant claimed outstanding sum plus interest and costs / Held: there is no evidence that parties intended payment to be subject to the Construction Contracts Act 2003 / Applicant breached contract as it was an implied term that the sealant would be applied to the correct depth and fixed this / onus was on Respondent, not Applicant, to show that other joints in the building were similarly affected or that the work was not carried out properly but did not provide evidence to show this / Respondent had no good reason to withhold payment / costs and interest not awarded / claim allowed (in pa…
  12. ACR v ZXL and ZXK [2013] NZDT 140 (2 August 2013) [PDF, 75 KB]

    Tort / negligence / multiple nose-to-tail collision in queue of cars caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed costs from sale of damaged vehicle, which are significantly lower than assessed repair costs / Tribunal finds Second Respondent failed to stop in time causing first collision on Applicant’s car / this then caused First Respondent to hit Second Respondent’s car causing second collision / Tribunal held both respondents liable for the claim / First Respondent liable for 40 per cent of claim; second respondent liable for 60 per cent / claim allowed – First Respondent and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,979.38 and $5,969.07, respectively.
  16. AGN v ZVH, ZVG and ZVF Ltd as trustees of LN Trust [2013] NZDT 467 (23 July 2013) [PDF, 57 KB]

    Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / reasonable care and skill in the supply of services / counter claim / duty to mitigate loss / Respondent engaged the services of Applicant to lay vinyl in a commercial premise / a number of problems occurred including lack of materials which delayed other building projects / Applicant completed the job and invoiced Respondent / Respondent has refused to pay / Applicant has claimed for $1,000.00 for the invoiced amount / Respondent counter claimed for $15,000.00 for loss of trading, stress and humiliation, loss of time and administration costs / Held: Applicant failed to carry out the service with reasonable care and skill / Respondent has suffered a loss but failed to mitigate potential loss / Respondent failed to prove loss amount / Both claims are dismissed.
  19. AEZ and AFA v ZUV t-a SR [2013] NZDT 225 (16 July 2013) [PDF, 59 KB]

    Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants lent Respondent some money as his business was struggling / Applicants purchased rods and reels from Respondent and agreed to deduct this from loan / Respondent did work on Applicants’ staircase and agreed to also deduct this from loan / an altercation between First Applicant and a third party upset Respondent who then invoiced Applicants for rods, reels and work / Applicants disputed amount charged for work and claimed amount outstanding on loan and interest / Held: Respondent charged more than reasonable price for work / s 31 Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent unable to prove hours spent on job / three alternative prices used to calculate reasonable price / interest not awarded as it was not envisaged / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $1,075.00.
  23. ADF v ZWU Ltd [2013] NZDT 180 (19 June 2013) [PDF, 53 KB]

    Limitation Act / jurisdiction / Limitation Act 1950 and Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Respondent is Applicant’s former accountant that filed a GST return for a tax refund when no GST invoice was held / this caused the IRD to impose shortfall penalty / Applicant claimed compensation for the tax penalty, costs and expenses / claim was filed more than six years after the tax return was sent to the IRD / Held: claim for negligent breach of contract statute-barred under Limitation Act 1950 / Applicant may have claim in tort of negligence if damage was suffered at later point but economic loss is outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / s 10(1)(c) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / also arguable that claim under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 statute-barred / claim transferred to the District Court.

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