Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Jurisdiction / Applicant undertook consultancy work for Respondent / Applicant says Respondent failed to pay some of its invoices for work completed / Applicant claimed $21,612 / Held: Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim / New Zealand was the jurisdiction with closest and most real connection to the contract / Proper law of contract was New Zealand / Applicant completed work / Respondent failed to pay and breached contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $21,612 / Claim allowed.

Negligence /Applicant claimed he was driving when the Respondent’s dog ran onto the road / Applicant claimed he was unable to avoid hitting the dog as it appeared suddenly in front of him / Respondent admitted owing and being in control of the dog at the time / Respondent denied she was negligent as the dog was only off his lead momentary / Respondent claimed she was about to put the dog on the leash when he went onto the road / Respondent claimed the collision occurred as the Applicant was not keeping a proper lookout/ Applicant claimed costs of repair was $5,430.19 / Held: evidence indicated that the Respondent was liable for the damage caused by her dog while it was temporarily outside of her control / However, there was contributory negligence on the part of the Applicant / Incident occurred on a busy road and the Applicant had an obligation to be able to stop if an obstruction appeared on the road / Contribution of 50 percent was allowed / Damage was consistent with description of…

Contract / Employment / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Employment / Applicant sourced labour and visas for workers subcontracted to Respondents / Respondent would pay an agreed rate to Applicant per worker per hour / Applicant would then pay the workers' wages and other entitlements / Applicant claimed that Respondent hired Applicant's former employee which is a breach of restraint provisions in the contract / Held: Respondent breached contract by hiring Applicant's former employee / Contract clause beyond considered reasonable and therefore not enforceable / In the interests of justice to rewrite the restraint provisions / Respondent knew worker had been employed by Applicant and should considered their contractual obligations / Applicant entitled to remedy / Applicant claimed $26,790.40 damages for breach of contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,320 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant signed agreement to purchase vehicle from Respondent and paid $5,000 deposit / Applicant did not pay balance owing / Respondent cancelled sale but retained deposit / Applicant claimed $5,000 deposit and $250 costs / Held: contract was unconditional / Deposit confirmed as security for performance of obligation to pay due balance / Agreement silent on when balance was due / Timeframe for payment implied as not to be immediate but not unduly extended, "as soon as reasonably practicable" / Respondent not entitled to cancel for non-payment / Vehicle was not ready for delivery at the time / Just for deposit to be returned to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased leather couches from Respondent / Applicant also purchased extended warranty covering damages to leather / Applicant discovered a tear in the leather that was not visible at time of delivery or when it was moved to the Applicant's new home / Applicant claimed for the couch to be replaced or to be refunded $2,999 / Held: couch was not of acceptable quality as it was already damaged when delivered / Failure was of substantial character as the rip was large and noticeable / Signing delivery was not an acceptance that goods were of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pick up damaged couch and deliver a new one or refund amount paid / Claim allowed.

Contract / Tort / Conversion / Parties bought 4 cows and a bull / Parties intended to co-own bull but Respondent primarily looked after it / Parties agreed one cow to be delivered to First Applicant but Respondent did not deliver cow /  Applicant texted Respondent to offer resolving dispute by Respondent paying Applicant $150 / Three years later Respondent paid $150 to Applicant / Second Applicant had cow which Respondent sold to freezing works / Applicant claims $6150 for value of cow Respondent didn't deliver / Second Applicant claims $942.08 for cow Respondent sold to freezing works / Respondent counterclaims against Applicant $5598.10 / Held: Parties had agreed each would own two cows with cow in dispute owned by Applicant / Respondent took steps to prevent Applicant from collecting cow amounting to conversion irrespective of whether cow is still alive / Applicant entitled to $1000 compensation for cow and $1250 for its calves /  Respondent refused Applicant access to bull in breac…

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were involved in car accident / Applicant drove straight through intersection / Respondent turned right from side street with give way sign and collided with Applicant / Respondent claimed intersection was blocked and Applicant was speeding / Applicant claimed $3482.55 for damage caused / Held: Respondent failed to give way and entered intersection without ensuring turn could be completed safely / Tribunal found Respondent’s maneuver unreasonable given vehicle size and traffic conditions / Tribunal rejected Respondent’s claims that Applicant was speeding or should have stopped due to insufficient evidence and conflicting accounts / No proof Applicant’s driving contributed to collision / Respondent and insurer ordered to pay Applicant and insurer $3482.55 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Law / Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent agreed to make Applicant a dress for her birthday party for $280.00 / Applicant paid $170.00 toward materials / Dress was not completed / Applicant sought a refund of $170.00 paid / Respondent claimed there was no contract as the dress was offered as a gift  / Held: no evidence the Respondent offered to make the dress as a birthday gift / Therefore, there was a contract between the parties / Respondent breached and cancelled the contract when they failed to finish the dress / Applicant is to collect the fabric from Respondent / Financial award not appropriate  / Claim dismissed .

Contract law / Applicant owned two rental properties managed by Respondent / Respondent purchased business previous property manager / Respondent deducted fees in accordance with its standard contract / Applicant disputed deductions and believed Respondent had underpaid amount owing / Applicant claimed $1423.99 for underpayment / Held: Respondent’s standard contract did not apply as Applicants had never seen or agreed to it / Despite this, Respondents had paid all rent due under original contract between Applicants and original property managers / Respondent entitled to deduct termination and Tenancy Tribunal fees following tenant’s departure / Respondents overcharged Tribunal fee allowed in contract by $100 / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a water distiller from the Respondent / Applicant noticed rust forming inside the wall of the distiller’s stainless steel boiling chamber / Efforts to clean the rust were unsuccessful / Applicant sought a refund of the purchase price and reimbursement of the Tribunal filing fee / Respondent said the rust the Applicant referred to would have been the result of her inappropriate use of an abrasive agent / Held: the extensive rust referred to by the Applicant was not normal and not such as should be reasonably acceptable to a reasonable consumer / No causal link between the use of an abrasive agent and the rust appearing / Device’s failure to meet the relative, and applicable, guarantee was substantial / Respondent was to provide a full refund of the purchase price of $599.00 / Tribunal had no power to award the Tribunal filing fee / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant entered residential building contract with Respondent / Applicant took possession of property but noticed the handbasin in the ground floor single toilet was badly cracked and unusable / Applicant claimed installed product was sub-standard and inferior to other preferred basin / Applicant claimed $100 cost for installing new basin / Held: Applicant agreed to a compact composite basin to be installed / Respondent not liable for installation costs for new handbasin / Applicant failed to prove damaged handbasin was a workmanship issue / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Tort / Trespass / First Applicant visited vape shop and parked vehicle in carpark managed by Respondent / Parking area reserved for laundromat customers / Respondent claimed $514.96 payment for parking breach notice, debt recovery administration costs and interest / Applicants claimed declaration of non-liability / Held: First Applicant trespassed Respondent's property / Parking signages clearly indicate parking reserved for laundromat customers / No contract between First Applicant and Respondent regarding late fees and charges / Even if contract had been formed, Applicant not required to pay extra fees as it was not adequately brought to their attention / Extra fees were unreasonable being four times initial breach figure / First Applicant ordered to pay Applicant $95 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant leased commercial unit to Respondents for period of one year / Respondent gave notice to terminate lease with 4 months remaining on lease / Respondent cited protection order and issues with the way landlord billed for electricity usage as reason for termination / Applicant claimed for outstanding four months rent plus interest / Applicant claimed unjustified termination as cancellation of lease for protection order is only available in residential tenancies / Held: Respondent entitled to terminate lease / Protection order not valid ground for termination / Electricity billing arrangement was undisclosed to Respondent prior to entering lease and was unreasonable / Billing arrangement meant Respondent liable for bills of other tenants without clear mechanism for reimbursement / Ongoing confusion and financial pressure on Respondent interfered with quiet enjoyment and business viability for Respondent entitling them to cancel lease / Claim dismissed.