Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract law / Parties were acquaintances through a badminton club / They arranged to travel with others overseas / Respondent was to purchase business class tickets for applicant, which was paid by applicant / Business class tickets were cancelled / New economy class tickets were purchased and later upgraded to premium economy / Applicant claimed for a refund of the difference between business and economy class, alleging respondent breached contract and benefitted from the refund / Held: changes made to booking were made by another party / No evidence that respondent received or benefitted from a refund / Tribunal found respondent fulfilled their contractual obligations by arranging and purchasing the business class ticket as greed / Claim dismissed.

Agency / Respondent contracted building company to build and transport an office home to their site / Work was completed and home was transported to site by Applicant / Building company later placed in liquidation / Applicant claimed it had contracted directly with Respondent as the building company acted as agent for Respondent / Applicant claimed $7,043.75 / Held: neither the building company or its director acted as either express or implied agent of Respondent / Applicant did not provide any evidence beyond mere belief / Respondent contracted with the building company directly as transport to site was one of line items on invoice that Respondent paid / Applicant’s invoice was issued to the building company initially and only changed to Respondent when advised to do so / Even if similar arrangements occurred between Applicant and the building company in the past, Applicant took risk each time as implied agency not automatic / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicant booked respondent to provide decoration services for a wedding / Subsequently, Applicant notified respondent that the wedding was cancelled due to unforeseen circumstances / Parties disputed the terms regarding refund of the 50% deposit / The parties met with witnesses and agreed respondent would refund $5,000 of the deposit in $1,000 instalments / Only $500 was paid / Applicants claimed a refund of $5,500 being the balance of the agreed refund / Held: Tribunal found there was a binding settlement agreement for respondent to refund $5,000 by instalments / Tribunal rejected respondent’s argument that the agreement was made under duress, the pressure not enough to void agreement / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $4,500 by 4 July 2025, Claim allowed.

Civil procedure / Applicants took an Income Protection and Mortgage Protection Insurance Policy with respondents in 2012 / In June 2024, applicant was made redundant / Applicant made a claim to respondent for income protection and mortgage repayment cover / Respondent declined the claim because redundancy was not covered by the policy / Applicant claimed $9,894.14 per month from respondent under policy for the first three months / Held: Tribunal found it did not have jurisdiction to decide the claim, as the total amount sough exceeded the $30,000 jurisdictional limit / If tribunal awarded only part of the claim, issue estoppel would prevent applicant from pursuing the remainder in another forum / Claim struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to refurbish vehicle’s engine and to replace cylinder / Vehicle travelled less than 3,000km and engine failed / Applicant claimed refund of repair costs of $4,241.20 / Held: Applicant unable to prove Respondent breached reasonable care and skill obligations / Applicant failed to prove cylinder was not replaced / Respondent’s evidence of parts invoice which contained new cylinder head preferred over Respondent’s mechanic who only had cursory inspection of engine / Engine failure may be due to faulty radiator which Applicant refused to replace / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent’s employee was driving vehicle and collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent’s vehicle damaged Applicant’s wakas and cradle / Applicant’s insurer claimed $12,760 in damages from Respondent / Held: Respondent liable for damages to one of Applicant’s waka and cradle / Reasonable care breached when Respondent failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle / Not satisfied that evidence proved other waka was also damaged in incident / Signs that cracks on it were previously fixed by tape and painted over / No load flag attached to wakas which caused difficulty in Respondent’s depth perception / Both parties have contributed to collision so both partially liable / Respondent liable for 70% of damages and ordered to pay $5,082 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA 1993) / Applicant engaged respondent to provide immigration advisory services / Applicant claimed Respondent negligently failed to submit the application and misled her into believing it was being processed / As a result, applicant’s visa expired, requiring her to apply for a section 61 work vis as an overstayer to regain legal status / Respondent refunded its fees, but applicant claimed $8,000 in damages for consequential losses / Held: Respondent failed to carry out services with reasonable care and skill, breaching the CGA 1993 / Claimed losses were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the failure, including costs for a new visa, increased fees, new consultant, medical exam, lost income, and mental distress / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $7,660 by 1 July 2025, Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into franchise agreement with Respondent / Applicant paid territory fee and part of establishment fee with the rest loaned from Respondent / Dispute arose when Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide guaranteed income and to allocate sufficient work / Respondent disputed that and cancelled contract / Applicant claimed paid fees and costs incurred / Respondent counterclaimed for unpaid royalty fees and balance of establishment loan / Held: parties bound by signed agreement / Applicant only entitled to be paid shortfall at annual anniversary / Applicant only worked six weeks so not yet entitled to shortfall / Respondent’s refusal to provide Applicant with sufficient work breached  contract / Respondent did not have grounds to cancel agreement as no evidence Applicant did not perform allocated work / Applicant only entitled to refund of fees paid and costs incurred / Respondent unable to claim for unpaid payments a…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicants ordered furniture after viewing them at Respondent’s showroom / Upon delivery Applicants noticed furniture branded with manufacturer’s logo and name / Applicants claimed branding not on furniture they viewed and Respondent did not advise branding will be on them / Applicants claimed return of furniture and refund of $2,261 / Held: Respondent breached the CGA as furniture delivered to Applicants did not match sample they saw in showroom / As it was failure of substantial character Applicants entitled to refund / Respondent to pay Applicants $2,261 and uplift furniture at its own cost / Claim allowed.   

Negligence / Applicant was riding his motorcycle when he collided with the Respondent’s vehicle / Applicant claimed the Respondent’s negligence when changing lanes caused the collision / Applicant and his insurer claimed $5,048.71 from the Respondent for damage caused in collision / Held: Applicant and insurer failed to prove it was more likely than not that the Respondent was negligent / Insufficient evidence to establish what took place / Not established that the Respondent breached his duty to take reasonable care / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 /  Applicant made a booking for a holiday house / Cost was $500 each night, and the Applicant paid $1000.00 in advance / Applicant said she was disappointed with the condition of the holiday home / Applicant advised the Respondent that the place was unclean / Respondent said they would urgently send a cleaner / Applicant advised that her group would not be staying / Applicant agreed she was refunded $433.00 but claimed for a full refund and $1000 for the inconvenience and stress caused / Held: house was not of acceptable quality as it needed cleaning / Applicant had cancelled the contract without giving the Respondent an opportunity to fix the issues / Applicant cancelled the contract without having the right to do so / Applicant not entitled to a refund or compensation / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Trespass / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties / Respondent wanted to remove large hedge growing between properties / Applicant claimed that Respondent scraped topsoil from Applicant's land in the process of removing the hedge / Applicant claimed compensation of $879.75 for cost to replace topsoil and remediate strip of land behind garage / Held: Respondents unintentionally damaged Applicants' property when they removed the topsoil / Respondent aware of their obligation to remediate damage / Applicant entitled to have their land reinstated to same condition it was before Respondents removed the hedge / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $879.75 / Claim allowed.

Contract law / Respondent requested Applicant to provide prices for arborist services / Applicant provided prices for work comprised of two stages / Stage 1 had fixed price for site visit and preparatory work / Stage 2 charged on hourly basis / Applicant stated they were unable to provide any estimates on time required / Respondent approved Applicant to commence stage 1 works but disputed they approved stage 2 / Applicant claimed $27,220.50 for unpaid invoices / Held: Respondent instructed Applicant to undertake further work after site visit and those fell under stage 2 / Hourly rate and basis for charging were clear / Contract formed when Respondent instructed Applicant to perform further work / Contract did not require acceptance to be in particular form / Applicant not required to declare work entered stage 2 / Respondent failed to provide sufficient evidence Applicant either charged unreasonably or excessively for work undertaken / Claim allowed.