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.

2954 items matching your search terms

  1. AGF Ltd v ZVQ Council [2012] NZDT 453 (20 March 2012) [PDF, 76 KB]

    Jurisdiction / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Resource Management Act 1991 / Applicant claimed costs against the respondent for the moving of a water supply valve to comply with a resource consent condition / Applicant claims Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the claim under the Fair Trading Act 1986 / Held: the parties’ relationship was created by the Respondent’s statutory authority under the Resource Management Act / Applicant’s claim is outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction / claim is to be struck out.

  2. Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 4 [PDF, 234 KB]

    Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 4 final determination TRI 2010-100-000112/DBH 6291. Decision date 3 February 2012. See also the Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 38 decision on remedial scope, Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 43 decision on quantum, the High Court Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 43 appeal decision CIV-2012-404-1123, Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 47 costs decision, and Zagorski v Wilkinson Building and Construction Limited [2012] NZWHT Auckland 49 amended costs decision.

  3. ADK v ZWP [2011] NZDT 164 (17 November 2011) [PDF, 111 KB]

    Contract / Misleading representation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant provided “garden quote” by email to Respondent for landscaping and garden work / Applicant then said he forgot to include GST in “garden quote” and increased total cost / work began and included additional work with no discussion as to price of new work / Respondent was told project was on budget but on final day was told it was little over budget / Respondent refused to pay as invoice exceeded agreed amount / Tribunal finds that “garden quote” was an estimate not quote as it lacked specificity / this estimate was GST exclusive as Respondent was put on notice and agreed to continue work / Applicant was entitled to exceed estimates in email but by no greater than 20 per cent / Applicant was entitled to charge no more than reasonable price for the additional work not included in estimate under s 31 Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s assurance amounted to misleading representation and breached s 13(g) of Fair…

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