Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Respondent drove vehicle into garage of Applicant’s rental property / Damage to garage was extensive and took 18 weeks to repair / Applicant reduced weekly rent by $50 during repair period / Insurers for both parties covered repair costs but not rent-reduction loss / Applicant claimed $900 / Held: Respondent not liable for rent-related loss / While Respondent caused the damage, consequential loss of rent reduction was too remote / Not reasonably foreseeable that driving into garage would lead to rent reduction / Main dwelling was not been affected / Rent reduction was voluntary decision by Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Contract / Applicant purchased travel insurance policy from Respondent / While abroad Applicant got sick and was diagnosed with medical condition / Applicant was advised to undergo surgery / Applicant sought pre-approval from Respondent who declined it as not an emergency and could wait until Applicant returned to New Zealand / Applicant proceeded with surgery at own expense / Applicant claimed $14,493.85 / Held: surgery was medically necessary and fell within policy’s coverage for “reasonable overseas emergency medical treatment” / No requirement in policy that only lifesaving surgery will be approved / Applicant’s symptoms were painful and prolonged so not reasonable for Applicant to suffer through long flight to receive care / Respondent did not appear to have all information when initially assessing necessity but subsequent reports should have alerted them that surgery was the only treatment available / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,493.85 / Claim allowed.  

Negligence / Applicant was driving and encountered an excavator operated by Respondent’s employee / Applicant followed road signs and drove past excavator / Respondent’s employee raised excavator bucket to avoid car but rubble fell from the bucket onto Applicant’s car causing damage / Applicant (via insurer) claimed Respondent was liable for repair costs / Held: excavator operator breached duty of care by failing to ensure the lane was clear before moving the bucket / Respondent vicariously liable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $5,243.43 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Trespass / Applicant lived in unit title development / His car was towed from private road by Respondent / Applicant paid $419.50 for its release / Applicant claimed tow unauthorised and sought $1,999 in refund and general damages / Held: Respondent committed tort of trespass to goods / Respondent wrongfully interfered with Applicant’s car and had no affirmative defence / Unclear whether tow had been properly authorised as Body Corporate denied responsibility /  Unclear whether car could be towed for parking on the side of private road / No signage to say parking was not permitted / Applicant did not cause obstruction / Towing fee recoverable but other damages not proven / Respondent to pay Applicant $419.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent’s cars collided at a roundabout / Applicant claimed $4,270.54 in damages / Held: Respondent failed to give way when entering roundabout / Respondent failed to take reasonable care / Insufficient evidence to show Applicant contributed to collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,270.54 / Claim allowed.  

Consumer law /  Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased laptop from Respondent in September 2024 / Applicant returned laptop in February 2025 due to faulty screen, which Respondent replaced / In April 2025 Applicant discovered crack on screen / Respondent refused to repair screen under warranty as it considered Applicant damaged the screen / Manufacturer repair technician also refused to repair under warranty as damage likely caused by Applicant / Applicant claimed refund of $704.21 / Held: damaged screen caused by Applicant opening laptop / However, replacement screen not of acceptable quality and not fit for purpose / Not sufficiently durable as broke within two months of replacement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $704.21 / Claim allowed.

Compensation / Vehicle collision / Applicants’ van and motorbike damaged in collision when Respondent failed to give way / Respondent acknowledged fault / Applicants did not have insurance / Respondent disputed quantum of remedy to be awarded to Applicants / Applicants claimed $7500 in compensation / Held: collision was the cause of the damage to the Applicant's motorbike /  Applicants were entitled to $6,501 being the costs claimed that were supported by receipt or valuation less $500 for the wrecked value of the van already received by Applicants / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant held credit card issued by Respondent / Applicant mistakenly paid $3,692.92 to foreign government agency and requested refund / No payment appeared in his account but he was informed that the agency had processed refund / Acquirer reference number was provided to him to assist tracking / Applicant paid $3,692.92 into credit card account to prevent it going into debt / Applicant contacted Respondent multiple times but Respondent incorrectly claimed money had already been paid into account / Applicant claimed $8,000 for financial loss and stress / Held: Respondent breached guarantee of reasonable skill and care by not investigating Applicant’s issue adequately / Respondent breached FTA by not honouring its advertisement to provide timely assistance to customers / Respondent’s failure prevented Applicant from recovering the refund, causing loss / Claim for compensation for stress and time spent did not m…

Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law 1997 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours who discussed possible exchange of services / Applicant claimed there was verbal agreement for the Applicant to provide architectural services and Respondent to provide tiling work / Applicant undertook measurements and presented proposed drawings / Respondent said he would consider proposal / Applicant later issued invoice for work done which Respondent refused to pay / Applicants claimed $1,748 / Held: no contract existed between Applicant and Respondent / Essential terms were uncertain / No agreed consideration / Respondent had not authorised Applicant to proceed with work / No agreement that payment would be financial rather than via service exchange / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant left his vehicle at the mechanics / Mechanic shared same building with Respondent / Fire broke out in building that destroyed Applicant’s car / Applicant alleges fire was due to Respondent’s negligence / Applicant claimed $25,600 in replacement vehicle and claims assist fee / Held: fire started from unknown source / Respondent had taken reasonable steps to mitigate any loss / Respondent did not fail in their duty to take reasonable care / Claim dismissed. 

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought mower from Respondent for $499 that was advertised with free shipping / Respondent later said pick up only / Applicant arranged friend to collect mower but friend collected wrong mower / Respondent insisted Applicant must return wrong mower and pay for correct mower to be sent / Applicant claimed refund and costs / Held: Respondent failed to comply with guarantee as to delivery and failure was of substantial character / Applicant did not have correct mower and Respondent would only provide correct mower if Applicant paid to return incorrect mower / Applicant entitled to reject goods and related transport costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $599 and Respondent to retrieve incorrect mower at own expense / Claim allowed.

Consumer law /  Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants hired a portable cabin from Respondent / Applicants alleged cabin not of acceptable quality / Cabin was not clean, had faulty heat pump and lacked adequate insulation / Respondent failed to resolve issue or allow early termination without penalty / Applicants claimed $3,053.15 (50% refund of hire charges and bond) and declaration of non-liability for last invoice / Held: cabin not of acceptable quality / Cabin was not clean, heat pump was faulty and insulation was inadequate for purposes advertised / Removal of cabin not done with reasonable skill and care / Respondent to pay Applicants $3,053.15 / Applicants not liable to pay remaining invoice / Claim allowed.