Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Transport / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Land Transport Act 1998 (LTA) / Applicant parked in a parking space at a shopping centre / Applicant returned to a $65 parking fee from the Respondent parking company / Applicant disputed the fee / Applicant sought a declaration of non-liability for the $65 parking fee and $1000 damages / Respondent reversed parking fee but Applicant continued in his claim for damages / Held: LTA was not relevant to the issuing of the parking enforcement notice / Parking notice unlikely to lead a reasonable person to conclude the Respondent was attempting to portray itself as having legal status it did not possess / Difficult to see how the Respondent’s parking notice, which was later waiver, amounted to recognised loss or harm to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Lack of jurisdiction / Contract / Insurance / Applicant has health insurance policy with Respondent / Applicant sought medical advice for skin condition with a doctor who is not an affiliated provider with Respondent / Applicant claimed reimbursement under insurance policy / Held: beyond power of Disputes Tribunal to consider or make orders in respect of business practices or policies / Respondent consistently communicated that cover was not available for any visit to a doctor who was not an affiliated provider / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Traffic collision /  Collision Between Applicant and Respondent at a traffic light-controlled intersection / Applicant claimed they had the green light and the Respondent failed to stop / Respondent was driving partner's vehicle / CCTV footage showed a partial view of the intersection / Applicant sought $14,314.77 from Respondent for repair costs / Vehicle’s insurer counterclaimed that the Applicant had failed to stop / Held: evidence indicated that the Applicant failed to stop at a red light and entered the intersection / Applicant was liable for the damage caused during the collision / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent's insurance company $1,496.29 being car’s value minus sale proceeds from wrecker / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants brought vehicle from Respondent / Applicants said vehicle damaged before sale but was not disclosed to them / Respondent attempted repairs but Applicants unsatisfied / Applicants claimed $3,819.16 in damages / Held: Implied guarantee under CGA that vehicle be of acceptable quality and free from defects / No issues Respondent’s paint job / No noticeable difference in paint colour on bonnet and on guards / Vehicle advertised as not involved in any accidents so damage is not of acceptable quality under CGA / Compressor had cosmetic damage but functional / Damaged trims in bonnet likely result of accident so not of acceptable quality / Unable to determine dent was present at sale / Respondent had opportunity to repair but failed to do so / Applicants entitled to repair costs for damaged compression and trims / Respondent to pay Applicants $2,142.01 / Claimed allowed in part.  

Property / Applicant was in relationship with Respondent / Applicant moved into Respondent’s home and with permission placed shed on land / Relationship subsequently ended and dispute arose over shed ownership / Applicant claimed return of shed or payment of $10,000 / Held: Applicant owned the shed which was not gifted to Respondent or abandoned / Applicant was sole financial contributor to purchase of shed / Respondent had some involvement but insufficient to establish ownership rights / Shed not gifted to Respondent as Applicant retained set of keys / Five months not enough to establish abandonment / Respondent’s contributions to building and upkeeping shed recognised as $1,000 / Applicant to collect shed and pay Respondent $1000 / If not collected, shed deemed abandoned and ownership passes to Respondent / If Respondent does not allow Applicant to collect shed, payment of $7,885.99 required / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence /  Applicant and Respondent had car crash / Applicant alleged Respondent caused crash by failing to give way / Applicant was driving straight along road and Respondent was turning into adjoining road from parked position / Applicant claimed $12,945.14 damages to repair car / Held: more likely than not that Respondent's driving caused collision and damage to Applicant's car / Respondent breached duty to drive carefully by failing to indicate and pulling into road when unclear merge into traffic could be safely completed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $12.945.14 to repair car / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant bought horse from Respondent for $15,000 / Respondent stated horses age was 12 / Applicant sought opinion of medical professionals who stated horse was 19 or 20 / Town vet has already paid Applicant $9,000 compensation not contradicting Respondent's statement on age / Applicant claims $6,000 compensation / Held: CCLA states a purchaser induced to buy goods with misrepresentation, whether innocent or fraudulent, may be entitled to compensation / The statement that the horse was 12 in 2023 was likely false / It was likely that that the misrepresentation induced Applicant to purchase horse / Applicant has likely received proper compensation for value difference / Claim dismissed. 

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent’s cars collided at a roundabout / Applicant and his insurer claimed $10,286.73 in damages and Respondent counterclaimed $1,092.50 / Held: on balance of probabilities it was more likely that Respondent caused accident by cutting across Applicant’s path while turning right / Tribunal found photos, impact location and route details supported Applicant’s version of events / Respondent was the negligent driver thus liable for repair costs / Respondent ordered to pay $10,286.73 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.  

Consumer law / Contract / Applicant booked tickets with Respondent but accidentally booked friend's ticket with stopover / Applicant contacted Respondent to remove stopover and paid $150 booking fee and $83.40 change fee / Applicant requested booking fee refund / Respondent agreed to refund booking fee but also refunded whole ticket / Applicant informed at airport that ticket refunded so needed to purchase new ticket / Applicant purchased new ticket and spent hours at destination organising return ticket / Applicant's friend upgraded to business class and Applicant given lounge access / Applicant claimed $30,000 as compensation for stress, inconvenience and Respondent’s alleged fraudulent ticketing / Held: contractual damages were compensatory / Applicant had not established entitlement beyond award of damages to compensate financial loss / Applicant and friend received free upgrades and apologies from Respondent / No entitlement to additional compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parking / Respondent issued $95 fine to Applicant as they parked in private carpark without authority / Applicant was overseas and did not receive the notice until they returned 6 weeks later / Applicant paid the fine and appealed to waive penalty fee / Respondent declined the appeal so Applicant paid $225 penalty but disputed further debt collection costs / Applicant claimed refund of $225 and declaration of non-liability for debt collection costs / Held: no enforceable contract between Applicant and Respondent / No contractual basis for imposing penalty fees or debt collection costs / $95 fine was reasonable for unauthorised use of carpark but additional charges not justified / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $225 / Applicant declared not liable for debt collection costs / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building / Building Act 2004 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant signed cost-plus contract with Respondent for building works and paid $23,000 deposit / Before building consent was granted, Respondent began constructing retaining walls / Applicant expressed concern about costs, progress and quality / Work took ten weeks and Applicant paid $154,612.09 / Applicant cancelled contract and claimed refund of $23,000 deposit / Respondent counterclaim the right to retain deposit for its loss of profit on cancelled work / Held: retaining wall work required building consent / Respondent breached implied warranties by carrying out building work without consent / Breach was substantial, entitling Applicant to cancel contract / Contract encompassed retaining wall work, even if scope expanded / Applicant validly cancelled contract / Just and practicable to grant refund of deposit upon cancellation as Applicant had already paid for all work completed / Respondent to pay Appl…

Contract / Respondent’s son studied at Applicant’s school / Respondent has not paid school fees / Applicant hired debt collector to retrieve fees / Applicants claim payment of $22,839.76 for unpaid fees and debt collection services / Held: Respondent to pay remaining amount of fees to Applicant / Respondent entitled to recover reasonable debt collection costs / Respondent to pay Applicant $23,339.76 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a laptop from the Respondent / After 2.5 years of ownership the laptop had technical issues / Independent report determining the laptop was faulty and irreparable / Applicant claimed refund of $2,297.99 / Held: substantial failure of acceptable quality / Applicant could have reasonably expected the laptop to last approximately 5 years / Too much time had elapsed since purchase for Applicant to obtain full refund / Applicant entitled to recover 60% of the purchase price to account for 2 out of 5 years of use before issues arose / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,400 / Claim allowed in part.