Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Aviation law / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Montreal Convention / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant bought international airline tickets and checked in for flight operated by Respondent / Flight was delayed due to required maintenance causing missed connection and additional waiting time / Applicant incurred meal, transport and accommodation costs / Only some costs were covered by insurance / Applicant claimed compensation for delay losses including expenses and loss of opportunity / Held: Montreal Convention applied to international carriage and Respondent responsible for delay as within airline control / Respondent did not breach FTA and Applicant proved limited damages only / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $300 / Claim accepted in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicants purchased return flights via Respondent's website and travelled Auckland to Melbourne to Singapore on codeshare flights operated by partner airlines / Applicants told in Auckland that their bags were checked through to London / Applicants were issued boarding passes only to Singapore and were told the Singapore–London boarding pass would be issued at the gate / Arrived in Singapore but were refused boarding for missing check‑in and [Airline] cancelled their return flights / Applicants bought new flights / Applicants claimed $8,522.08 for failing to provide sufficient and accurate information about flights in breach of CGA or FTA / Held: Respondent fulfilled obligations and information provided was clear and not misleading / No failure by Respondents to exercise reasonable care and skill and no causal link to missed flight / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant booked flights with Respondent but accidentally booked opposite direction of intended travel / Applicant asked Respondent for refund or flight change / Respondent said fare type did not allow refund or free changes but Applicant could pay $1604 to change flights / Part of amount charged included $320 contact handling centre fee / Applicant claimed refund of $1064 additional flight change fees /  Held: Applicant made mistake but should have taken reasonable care to book flights in right direction / No remedy under CGA when consumer mistakenly purchases good or service / Not unfair under s 26A FTA for airline to impose charges for flexibility of fare types or flight changes / Respondent accepted they should not have imposed contact centre handling fee / Respondent to refund $320 contact centre handling fee to Applicant / Claim accepted in part.

Contract / Applicant and her husband were unable to board an international flight with the Respondent airline / Applicant had checked in online and had no luggage to check in / Upon arrival at the airport, Applicant and her husband were advised that they had to print their boarding passes before proceeding beyond the security checks / They were advised that their boarding passes could not be printed and they would not be able to board the flight / Applicant was advised that they would need to rebook their flights / Applicant and her husband booked international flights for the following day / Applicant sought $1237.90 from for two one-way international flights ($834.90), one night’s accommodation ($295) and meals ($108) / Held: terms and conditions on the ticket and boarding passes were not sufficiently clear / Information provided by the Respondent was open to interpretation and not fit for purpose for customers like the Applicant / Respondent breached the contract by not allowing the…

Contract / Applicant booked 59 return international flights with the Respondent / Each time the Applicant booked a flight he would cancel the paid part of the fare, obtaining a credit and retaining the free outgoing booking, and then book another return flight under the same terms / Applicant did not take any of the outgoing flights / For each outgoing flight there was a charge for passenger movement / Respondent airline paid that charge in each case / Applicant did not take any of the flights and any passenger movement charge paid would have been refunded to the Respondent since the Applicant did not depart at any point/ Respondent refused to pay passenger movement claims / Applicant filed a claim for the payment of 59 passenger movement charges, totalling $4,965.00 / Held: no passenger movement charges were collected from Applicant for flights / No administration fee was refundable as none was paid to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked international return flights for her mother through the Respondent / First flight departed at scheduled time but return flight left three hours early stranding the Applicant’s mother at the airport / Applicant was told that her mother had failed to reconfirm her flight 72 hours before departure, therefore Respondent could not help her / Applicant made a booking with another airline and her mother was able to fly home two days later / Applicant claimed compensation of $1,050.90, cost for extra return flight home / Held:  Respondent did not manage the flight with reasonable care and skill / Respondent was advised of flight change three months before scheduled departure / Significant flight change notifications were part of the agreed services provided by Respondent / Not reasonable for the Respondent to assume the airline would contact Applicant / Respondent refused to help Applicant book another flight, so she was left to he…

Contract / Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants booked international travel with Respondent airline / One flight in the journey was delayed for 17 hours and 40 minutes due to a hydraulic leak / Applicants claimed $7,624.38 for various costs, including for lost wages due to extra delay in transit, cost of traveling back to the destination to recoup one day’s missed holiday, time spent dealing with Respondent to seek compensation, and costs associated with Tribunal hearing / Respondent had reimbursed Applicants for some costs associated with delayed flight, including reimbursing cost of the flights themselves despite not being legally required to do so, less an outstanding $216.00 that it had been unable to credit to a credit card / Held: Applicants’ claimed losses were not reasonably foreseeable, therefore Applicants not entitled to compensation / Tribunal costs unable to be awarded in circumstances / Applicants to provide bank account details to Respondent for outst…

Contract / Applicant booked travel on a flight with Respondent / Applicant missed Respondent’s flight due to travel delays / Applicant purchased ticket with different airline for US$559.94 / Applicant claimed cost of $559.94 airline ticket / Held: Applicant’s contract with Respondent was for the flight only / It was Applicant’s responsibility to ensure booked flights were suitable for her purposes / Applicant’s inability to get to Respondent’s flight on time was not Respondent’s fault / No breach of contract established / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Montreal Convention / Damage of baggage / Applicant checked in stroller for flight / Stroller did not arrive and was later returned in a damaged state / Whether airline responsible for the baggage delay and damage / Whether Applicant entitled to sum claimed / Applicant reported damaged with the requisite period / No supporting evidence that stroller had been checked in already damaged / Evidence that sun visor had been torn off / No evidence that stroller could be easily repaired / Loss assessed at $2,000 / Claim allowed

Contract / Applicant was a member of an airline loyalty programme under which she earned loyalty points / Respondent cancelled 187,928 of the Applicant’s loyalty points / Applicant sought either reinstatement of points or $6,207.26, amount needed to purchase same number of points / Held: Loyalty Programme Rules constituted contract that was relevant to the claim / Rules indicated that the Applicant was responsible to keep track of her points and their expiry date / Respondent had not breached its contract with Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Compensation / Montreal Convention 1999 / Airline liability / Applicant booked tickets from Respondent / Applicant's flight cancelled / Applicant's luggage went missing and two luggages were found with significant water damage / Applicant claimed $25,953 compensation / Held: Applicant entitled to $2,139.54 under Montreal Convention / Montreal Convention has limits to compensation claim / Each Applicant entitled to $640 in compensation for delay / Respondent ordered to pay First Applicant $2,779.54 and Second Applicant $640 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Jurisdiction / Applicant travelled to New Zealand with Respondent airline / Respondent charged additional baggage fee for Applicant’s air rifle / Applicant claimed additional charge contradicted Respondent’s baggage policy / Held: matter was a contract dispute / Contract between parties was formed outside New Zealand / Tribunal did not have extra-territorial jurisdiction / No jurisdiction to determine dispute / Claim struck out.

Contract / Civil Aviation Act 1990 (CAA) / Applicants booked flights with Respondent / Applicants had to first fly with another carrier to connect with Respondent's flight / Connecting flight was delayed and later cancelled / Due to cancellation Applicants missed flight with Respondent / Applicant tried to contact Respondent / Applicant booked flight for next day / Applicant claims $1,298.20 for cost of rebooking new flight tickets / Held: Respondent is a contracting carrier under the Montreal Convention, schedule 6 of CAA / Respondent remained liable for the acts and omissions of carrier airline as its actions are deemed to be that of Respondents / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $1,298.20.