Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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 / Applicant rented car from Respondent / Applicant was delayed to pick up rental car and was offered a replacement / Replacement rental had a wet seat / Applicant was given another replacement rental, but had forgotten baby mirror in first replacement rental / Applicant also rented baby seat but had difficulty installing it into rental / Respondent had not provided seat belt locking clip / Applicant hired baby seat from third party / Respondent had not located baby mirror / Applicant claims $349.95 / Held: goods supplied by hire must be of acceptable quality / To be of acceptable quality goods must be fit for purpose and safe / Respondent provided incorrect car seat / Respondent’s staff could not have done more to assist Applicant / Not enough evidence provided to conclude locking clip was required / Respondent did not fail to do enough to find Applicant’s baby mirror / Respondent is partially liable to remedy / Respondent to pay Applicant $6…

Contract law / Building Act 2004 / Respondents engaged Applicant and another builder to build home / Labour only contract signed by parties / Respondents then made changes adding completion date and insurance clause / Applicant claimed he never agreed to changes / Respondents felt builders took too long to complete project so cancelled contract / Applicant claimed $7,774 in unpaid fees / Respondents counterclaimed $30,000 for costs incurred and failure to comply with implied warranties / Held: completion date and insurance changes made did not form part of contract / Changes were made after Applicant signed contract / No evidence they saw or agreed to changes / Respondents alleged Applicant overcharged compared to other builder / Respondents did not provide sufficient evidence to prove Applicant’s time recording was inaccurate / Applicant entitled to be paid for hours worked / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondents’ counterclaim that Applicant breached implied warranties / No evide…

Property law / Contract law / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased a new build townhouse from respondents / Townhouse was built in the wrong position, resulting in a smaller section and delayed settlement due to needing a new resource consent / Respondent gave Applicant access to the townhouse before settlement / Respondent attempted to cancel the contract under a sunset clause / Applicant successfully obtained a court order for specific performance / Applicant claimed $29,990.84 for costs of attempted cancellation and for defects in townhouse / Held: Respondent breached the contract by attempting to cancel under sunset clause / Other claimed costs not awarded due to lack of causation, remoteness, or insufficient evidence of breach / Respondent liable for certain defects notified within 12 months of completion / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,493.17 / Claim allowed in part.  

Contract law / Applicant purchased a premium economy fare from first respondent for a flight operated by second respondent, with an additional fee for a date change / At the airport, applicant was informed there was no premium economy class on the flight due to a change of aircraft / Applicant had to travel in economy class / Applicant claimed a refund for the fare difference between premium economy and economy fare and compensation for stress / Held: Tribunal found that second respondent did not provide the service agreed and applicant was entitled to a refund of the fare difference / Applicant to receive nominal damages for the stress incurred due to lack of advance notice / First respondent ordered to pay applicant a credit of $429, second respondent ordered to pay applicant $1,039.90 by 7 July 2025, Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Applicant purchased $60 worth of diesel from Respondent / Warning light appeared on applicant’s dashboard / A garage confirmed water in the fuel tank and lines / Applicant spent $8,491.47 on repairs and claimed water contamination must have come from the diesel purchased from Respondent / Respondent provided evidence of multiple safeguards against water contamination / Applicant claimed $8,491.47 in repair costs from respondent / Held: Tribunal found applicant could not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that the water contamination was caused by diesel purchased from respondent / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA 1993) / Applicant purchased a vehicle from respondent / Eight months after purchase and less than 4,000km, the vehicle suffered a catastrophic failure / Applicant alleged respondent was “in trade” and claimed $10,700 under the CGA 1993 that the vehicle was not durable / Held: Tribunal found that applicant had not proved respondent was in the trade of selling motor vehicles- this was a private sale / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Second Applicant purchased vehicle from First Respondent / Vehicle had Warrant of Fitness issued by Second Respondent / Vehicle had defects and Applicants seeks costs / Held: Legislative consumer protection not available for private sales / No obligation on First Respondent to ensure vehicle was mechanically sound / Second Applicant not induced to enter agreement through misrepresentation or mistake / Lack of knowledge on defects does not meet legal criterial of mistake / Onus on Applicant to exercise due diligence / Second Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill when doing WOF inspection / Waka Kotahi report identified faults Second Respondent failed to identify / Second Applicant relied on report and suffered loss / No independent evidence about cost of remedy / Conservative approach to compensation taken / Second Respondent to pay Second Applicant $400 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant contacted lawyer from Respondent for legal advice on restraint of trade clause in employment contract with her former employer / On lawyer’s advice Applicant set up business at home which violated clause / Former employer filed and obtained interim injunction from Employment Relations Authority (ERA) preventing Applicant’s business from operating / Applicant claimed lawyer gave wrong advice and sought $20,000 / Held: not satisfied Applicant established on balance of probability lawyer was negligent or gave wrong advice / Another experienced barrister gave her similar advice / ERA member had different opinion but their finding was not a final determination / Issue never went to final determination as it was settled by mediation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked in Respondent’s carpark / Applicant made no payment for parking / Respondent sent Applicant parking breach notice and claimed $85 payment  / Applicant paid $17 as Applicant stated that was the actual loss Respondent had gotten from Applicant’s non payment / Respondent arranged debt collection services and requested Applicant to pay $118 for balance of amount owing, debt collection fees and administration costs / Held: Signage in car park was visible so Applicant had accepted its terms when he parked car in car park / The New Zealand Supreme Court has stated in contract a reasonable payment can be requested for a breach to protect legitimate business interests by who the sum is claimed / $85 was a reasonable sum claimed / Claim dismissed / Applicant to pay Respondent $68.00. 

Contract law / Applicant parked in a private car park managed by respondent while delivering food / Signs in the car park warned of a $95 infringement fee for unauthorised parking and further liabilities for late payment / Applicant paid the $95 fee but disputed liability for additional late fees and debt collection costs / Respondent counterclaimed for $416.71 in late fees, debt collection costs, and interest / Applicant sought a declaration that he was not liable for $225 in late payment fees / Held: no contract (unilateral or bilateral) was formed between parties by entering the car park; the signage was a warning, not an offer / Initial $95 fee was enforceable under the law of trespass as a reasonable fee for unauthorised use of land / No legal basis for charging additional late payment fees, debt collection costs, or interest under trespass or contract law / Applicant not liable to pay $225 in late payment fees or other amount beyond initial $95 fee, Claim allowed / Respondent’s c…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged the Respondent to rebuild an engine for their vehicle / Two weeks later, Applicant contacted Respondent regarding issues with the van  / Respondent carried out work on the van over several months / Applicant collected the van and was asked to pay $2,000 for additional work / Applicant was dissatisfied with the Respondent’s work and stated there were missing and damaged parts / Applicant claimed $7,934.00 consisting of refund for of additional work, cost of remedial work, and for damaged and missing parts / Held: Respondent did rebuild the engine with reasonable care and skill / Insufficient evidence that the Respondent took or damaged any parts / Respondent was entitled to charge $2,000 for additional work because a considerable amount of time was spent trying to diagnose the problem / Applicant not entitled to any compensation as work was carried out with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a new vehicle from first respondent and had a new towbar fitted by them / Applicant alleges the towbar was too law, causing damage and requiring removal / Applicant claimed compensation for cost of replacement towbar, inconvenience, and potential unquantified damage, alleging the towbar was not of acceptable quality / Held: Tribunal found the towbar was fit for purpose and the damage was consistent with misuses, not a defect or design fault / Claim dismissed.