Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / vicarious liability / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicants claim Respondent’s road sweeper showered stones and gravel onto their car, causing damage / Applicants claim for the cost of damage due to Respondent’s negligence / issue of whether Respondent was negligent in the operation of the road sweeper / Held: Respondent was not negligent / Respondent operated the road sweeper in accordance with industry standards / Respondent’s duty of care to other road users was not breached / Applicants’ claim is dismissed.

Jurisdiction / Overseas parties / Applicant is an overseas company based in Australia / Respondent is a New Zealand company based in Christchurch with Australian clients / agreement between parties that Respondent would service some of the Applicant’s Australian-based clients / no written terms to the agreement / Respondent paid the Applicant in Australian dollars / Applicant sought to recover a number of outstanding invoices / the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 and Disputes Tribunals Rules 1989 entitled any person to commence proceedings in the Tribunal in the prescribed form / no issue of enforcement when Applicant resides overseas / District Court has held that the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim by an overseas applicant / according to principles of conflict of laws, claim should be heard in accordance with Australian law / Disputes Tribunal not able to apply Australian law / claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction. 

Jurisdiction / tort / pure economic loss / Applicant manufactured an additive to grapes / Respondent was contracted by a winemakers association to prepare a “spray schedule” for circulation to the members of the association / Respondent was of the opinion that the Applicant’s product should be on the schedule and accompanied by a statement saying that it may affect the flavour of the wine / Applicant argued that it has suffered loss as a result of the publication of this view / Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claims in tort is limited to claims in tort in respect of any damage or injury to property / property refers to tangible property such as chattels and does not encompass alleged harm to pure economic interests, such as loss of a sale / claim outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction / claim struck out.

Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / Respondent a former employee of Applicant / Applicant overpaid Respondent $380.98 in his final pay / Respondent claims he can retain the overpayment pursuant to the Wages Protection Act 1983 / Applicant claims $380.98 plus filing fee from the Respondent / issue as to jurisdiction / Tribunal has jurisdiction under quasi-contract to hear claim / Employment Relations Authority does not have exclusive jurisdiction to determine matters of overpayment to an employee after employment terminated / claim not founded in contract and Respondent has not breached a contract / quasi-contract / person liable to make restitution when unduly enriched / Respondent received money he was not entitled to through Applicant’s error / no legal reason justifying non-repayment / WPA does not apply as Applicant not seeking to deduct overpayment from future wages / Respondent not entitled to the money and has been unduly enriched by Applicant’s error / unjust for Respondent to reta…

Contract / lack of consideration / Director of Respondent offered to provide free accounting services to Applicants for two years during sale negotiations of a gym business / offer was confirmed in email after which Applicants arranged to transfer files from previous accountant / dispute arose over retention of an amount of purchase price from sale / Respondent advised Second Applicant that agreement to provide accounting services was cancelled / Applicants claimed two years’ accounting fees / Tribunal finds that there was agreement between parties to provide accounting services free for two years / this was not part of the Sale and Purchase Agreement / this was not legally binding as there was no consideration thus not enforceable / Applicants not contractually entitled to any compensation / offer was in the nature of a gratuitous offer / claim dismissed.

Tort / negligence / Animals Law Reform Act 1989 / Applicants’ vehicle driven by First Applicant collided with a bull owned by BG Trust on a state highway / Applicants claimed for the damage to their car / Held: BG trust’s actions were not negligent as they met the standard expected of a reasonably prudent farmer raising bulls / BG trust had taken a number of steps to minimise the likelihood of damage arising / altercation with mob of bulls was unexpected and unavoidable / BG trust could not have done anything further to prevent the escape / claim dismissed.

Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s cattlebeast escaped on the road / collided with Applicant’s car causing extensive damage / car written off / issues are whether respondent failed to take reasonable care if third party had left gate open and whether storage costs while Applicant’s wreck was being sold are established / held that Respondent failed to take reasonable care to ensure stock did not stray on to road – either by leaving gate open himself or allowing third party to do so / storage period of 52 days not foreseeable and is therefore reduced to 14 days / sum awarded reduced accordingly by $218.50 / Respondent ordered to pay $6,901.26 / Respondent to pay the money to Applicant’s insurer.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to acceptable quality / Applicant claimed outstanding invoice from Respondent for sale of goods / Respondent counterclaimed for different goods supplied earlier and alleged these were deficient once installed / Applicant denied these were deficient and claimed he was not responsible for installation deficiencies / Held: disputed goods were supplied as ordered, accepted on delivery and installed by a third party contractor / Applicant complied with his side of contract and was not responsible for installation / Applicant entitled to payment for outstanding invoice / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay applicant $7,039.83.

Tort / Trespass to land / Applicant and Respondent neighbours / Applicant claims that the Respondent threw dog faeces on her roof / evidence from Applicant’s builder that he’d found dog faeces on the Applicant’s roof / to succeed in a claim of trespass to land, necessary to show that the trespass arose from the actions of a specific person, not just the property / although the faeces most likely did originate from the Respondent’s property, Applicant failed to establish on the balance of probabilities that it was the Respondent, specifically, who threw the dog faeces onto the roof / claim dismissed

Contract / Money owing on a debt / Respondent given notice in writing and via email / question of the Respondent’s liability for collection costs and interest after notice / Terms of Hire were clear as to interest on debts / terms did not specify whether the interest accrued on existing overdue amounts / interest not charged prior to notice as this would have been to apply interest retrospectively / a retrospective application of the clause would amount to a harsh exercise of its enforcement powers for the purpose of s 19(e) of the Disputes Tribunals Act / Respondent to pay debt collection fees and a reduced amount of interest from that claimed.

Jurisdiction / quasi-contract / copyright infringement / Respondent re-published certain photographs on its website taken from Applicant’s website without Applicant’s permission / therefore, Applicant argues that Respondent obtained undue advantage and thereby Applicant entitled to be compensated in quasi-contract / Tribunal finds copyright falls within definition of ‘intellectual property’ under s 11 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to deal with intellectual property under section 11(5)(c)(iv) / claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction / claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Respondent opened his car door and hit Applicant as she drove past, damaging the front side of her car / Held: Respondent created a hazard by opening his door in the path of ongoing traffic, breaching r 7.2(1) of the LTR 2004 and his duty of care / the Applicant was not driving too close to the Respondent / Respondent to pay reasonable costs to compensate Applicant, being $2,490.85.

Contract / breach of contract / agency / Applicant acted as rental property manager in respect of the Respondents’ tenanted property / contract provided Applicant full authority as Respondents’ agent in respect of the property / included taking emergency measures at Respondents’ cost / sewage drain blocked at property / work commissioned by Applicant in consultation with Respondents / Respondents rejected second bill for works and terminated agency contract / Applicant claims $1,188.57 outstanding from second bill / Applicant entitled to be compensated for liabilities incurred on behalf of Respondents / Applicant had full authority to act in response to emergency situation / no evidence Applicant breached contract by failing to exercise due care, skill and competency in providing its services / Applicant consulted with, and received consent from, Respondents about instructing contractors / rent issue / Applicant entitled under agency contract to continue receiving rent from tenants unt…