Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant paid site fee to exhibit her floral displays at fair organised by Respondent / Respondent cancelled fair three days before scheduled date due to low ticket sales / Applicant claimed Respondent had not advertised fair adequately and sought compensation for the flowers, preparation time and loss of opportunity / Applicant claimed $1,713.50 / Held: Agreement between Applicant and Respondent not conditional on certain number of tickets sold / Respondent breached obligation by cancelling fair / Applicant unable to prove losses resulted from Respondent’s conduct / No specific term of agreement that Respondent had to undertake certain amount of advertising / Applicant unable to prove insufficient advertising caused poor ticket sales / Applicant’s expenses would have incurred even if fair proceeded / Timing of cancellation was reasonable / Loss of opportunity too remote to calculate / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant leased business premise from Respondent / Premise’s wastewater pump failed and Respondent refused to undertake repairs / Applicant arranged repairs and claimed costs of $4,197.50 / Held: pump is part of Respondent’s building and not Applicant’s asset / Agreement for Sale and Purchase did not specify which assets were included in the business / Pump part of drainage system ordinarily part of building hence property of landlord / If intended otherwise onus on Respondent to make clear in Agreement / Deed imposed obligations on landlord to maintain building services which included drainage system / Landlord liable to pay full cost of pump replacement / Claim granted.

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.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 ‘CGA’ / Applicant’s order groceries from Respondent / Contractor employed by Respondent delivered groceries / Contractor broke branch from a tree reversing out of Applicant’s driveway / Applicant’s stated that branch created unique arch effect over driveway / Applicant’s claim that property has lost value / Applicant claims $20,000 / Held: Contractor did not provide delivery service with reasonable skill and care / CGA states where there is failure to provide service with reasonable skill and care which cannot be remedied, consumer is entitled to damages for reduction in value of service and damages for any other losses that were reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent liable to pay Applicant $1,200. 

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA 2017) / Applicants purchased a vehicle from respondent / Six months later, police informed applicants the car was stolen and it was returned to its owners / Applicants contacted respondent for a refund, but did not receive a refund / Applicants claimed the purchase price of $17,800 from respondent / Held: Tribunal found respondent breached an implied condition under s 135(1)(a) of the CCLA 2017 / Respondent did not have the right to sell the stolen vehicle / Applicants entitled to rescind the contract and receive a full refund with interest on purchase price from date of sale / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $19,005.30 by 29 July 2025, Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant spoke to Respondent about landscape work / Applicant and Respondent agreed for work to be completed at $3,000 / Applicant claimed Respondent began work but never completed it / Applicant claimed refund of money paid / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract as Respondent repudiated contract / Applicant entitled to receive paid amount less total amount spent on work and materials / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $978.75 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to renovate home for their client / Four invoices exceeding quote were paid but Applicant refused to pay fifth invoice of $15,393.40 / Applicant claimed overpayment of $30,000 and non-liability for unpaid invoice / Respondent counterclaimed $15,393.40 / Held: Quote was estimate, not fixed price contract, as it lacked terms typical of fixed price contracts / Multiple variations occurred during project which were requested by the Applicant, assistant or client / Variations were additional works not covered by original quote / Under law of agency Respondent entitled to rely on assistant’s directions as authority for variations / Tribunal found no evidence of defective work or unreasonable labour honour / Applicant breached contract by failing to pay for completed work / Applicant liable to pay Respondent $15,393.40 / Claim dismissed and counterclaim allowed.

Property / Respondent and Applicant were neighbours / Respondent wanted to cut back tree and ivy overhanging from Applicant’s property so left a letter with her contact detail / Applicant discovered the note but did not respond / Respondent cut the tree and ivy but also removed a section of trellis on Applicant’s property which resulted in a gap / Applicant claimed $1,999 in compensation to replace trellis and loss of privacy / Held: on balance of probabilities, there was trellis on Applicant’s property and Respondent removed it / Applicant owned property for 12 years and produced photos showing ivy growing on trellis / Applicant entitled to reasonable cost to replace trellis / No reduction for betterment as Applicant lost privacy / Respondent to pay Applicant $850 / Claim allowed in part.

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.