Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Insurance / Bailment / Carriage / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant engaged Respondent’s moving and storage services / Following tornado at storage facility, Respondent advised Applicant her goods looked fine / Storage container found to have split, allowing moisture to enter, significantly damaging Applicant’s goods / Applicant claimed $27,732.59 for losses / Held: Respondent liable through both bailment and Consumer Guarantees Act for failure to protect Applicant’s goods / Damage occurred due to Respondent’s incorrect conclusion about container’s weathertightness / Applicant’s loss assessed as $16,808.50 / Applicant liable for $2,380.00 outstanding invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,428.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant agreed to assist with de-stocking animals at a farm / Respondent concerned about welfare of the farm owner’s stock / Applicant made an agreement with farmer to assist with de-stocking and improvement of remainder of stock / Applicant made agreement on the understanding he would receive commission on the sale of the animals / Applicant performed destocking tasks / Respondent requested stock numbers to be reduced further / Respondent employed another as a stock agent / Sale of animal proceeds were paid to the farmer / Applicant claimed compensation on ground that Respondent deprived him of income he was going to receive per agreement with farmer / Held: Applicant did not have a contract with Respondent about sale of stock / Applicant had a contract with farmer / Respondent was not unjustly enriched at Applicant’s expense / No arguable basis for award of compensation / Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s claim / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant entered sale and purchase agreement and building contract with Respondent / Delays pushed completion and settlement dates further than agreed / Applicant claimed damages for inordinate delay, being rental during additional time, storage costs, and tiling costs as concreting delays prevented tiler from starting / Held: much of delay due to unusual market conditions at time of build, outside Respondent’s control / Delay was inordinate, but insufficient evidence to place figure on how much of delay was unreasonable and unavoidable / Respondent liable only for tiling delay, as concreting not completed in time for tiler’s work, resulting in $873.83 cost increase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $873.83 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased a new build property from Respondent / Prior to settlement, several defectives were identified by Applicants in a list / Settlement went ahead before defects were remedied / Applicants requested defects be remedied again / Following hearings, defectives were remedied / Applicants advised there was a defect in the laundry tub which had developed rust / Respondent denied liability for tub as not notified earlier on list / Applicant claimed tub was covered by warranties / Applicant sought replacement tub / Held: Applicants provided evidence they notified Respondent of defective tub / Respondent liable to replace defective laundry tub / Respondent ordered to pay $1,737.60 to replace and install tub / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondents purchased products and services from Applicant valued at $11,817.52 / Applicant claimed $10,684.41 from Respondents for overdue invoices / Respondents claimed they paid lower sum as originally quoted plus ten percent extra as good will gesture / Respondents disputed owing any further sum / Held: quotation provided by Applicant clearly stated it was only valid for 30 days  / As Respondent purchased the goods outside of the 30 days, quoted price no longer applied / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $10,684.41 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligent misstatement / Contract / Resource Management Act 1991 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant claimed $29,949 for costs incurred in pursuing resource consent subdivision application / Respondent claimed $7,549.21 for fees and disbursements incurred in processing Applicant’s application / Held: Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort limited to claims involving physical damage to property / Monetary loss is not property damage / No jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s monetary claim / Relationship between parties arose under Resource Management Act, not contract / Tribunal has no jurisdiction under RMA, therefore no jurisdiction in relation to Applicant’s declaration of non-liability or Respondent’s monetary claim / Claim and counter-claim dismissed.

Rehearing Application / Contract /  Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Disputes Tribunal made an order for Respondent to pay Applicant $550 / Respondent applied for an adjournment due to illness / Held: Respondent's documents unavailable due to delay provides strong grounds for granting rehearing / However, even if the additional evidence and submissions had been available, they would not have altered the outcome of the claim / Respondent seemingly accepted Applicant's entitled to refund / Previous order stands / Rehearing refused.

Negligence / Duty of care / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle accident / Applicant's insurer covered vehicle repair costs / Applicant claimed $8,588.44 / Held: Respondent failed to ensure path he was driving into was clear when he drove into Applicant's vehicle / Respondent was negligent / Applicant did not contribute to cause of collision / Costs claimed reasonable for damage caused in collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $8,588.44 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased lamps from Respondent via their New Zealand website / Lamps not usable without stepdown voltage changer / Applicants contacted Respondent regarding refund, which was not accepted / Applicants sought refund of costs of lamps, $845.95 / Held: implied that electrical appliances supplied in New Zealand will be of suitable type and voltage to be used in New Zealand / Lamps not fit for purpose / Failure was substantial as lamps could not be used for purchase purpose /  Respondent ordered to pay $845.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent entered into contract with Applicant for data plan / Plan discontinued by network provider / Applicant offered Respondent alternative options / Respondent queried rising cost of data and stopped payment / Applicant claimed $1,191.91 owing payment / Held: Respondent used excess data he has been invoiced for / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,191.91 / Claim allowed.

Guarantees / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant had a double sided gas fire installed by Respondents in her new home / Error codes started appearing on the fire’s remote control / Applicant contacted the fire supplier / Supplier told him to contact a plumber or gas fitter to get it repaired / A gas fitter came and repaired the fire / Applicant was charged $477.25 for repair which he now claims from Respondent / Held: Insufficient evidence to prove the issue with fire was due to manufacturer’s fault / More likely an installation issue which Respondent had not been involved with / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parties entered into lease for commercial premises / Respondents did not wish to renew lease with increased rent / Respondents paid at old rate while looking for other premises / Applicant seeks shortfall between old rent and new rent, management fee, operational expenses, legal costs, management time and loss of rental income / Held: no rent arrears because of timing of rent increase / Management fee cannot be charged to the tenant / Operating expenses accepted by respondents / Each party must pay their own costs / No power to award costs for filing fee and photocopying / Respondents liable for outstanding operational expenses and damages for loss of opportunity to rent / Claim allowed, respondents to pay applicants $6,342.86