Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent operated a cosmetic beauty business / Respondent offered Applicant a training programme in teeth whitening with the understanding Applicant would receive certificates from a professional body upon completion / Applicant paid $1,200 for the training, completed the courses and provided services for two customers / Certificate provided was in Respondent’s name / Professional body confirmed Respondent was not an authorised trainer and could not issue certificates / Applicant claimed a refund of $1,200 alleging misleading or deceptive conduct and false representation / Held: Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct  by representing Applicant would receive a certificate from the professional body / Applicant did not receive the training or certificate as represented and was entitled to a refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,200 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Accommodation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Appellant booked accommodation online and paid $615.50 for one night / Facility was advertised as being five stars / Appellant claimed the facilities were not five star as there were rodents in the ceiling, blocked and dirty shower, and general poor cleanliness / No on-site staff to address any concerns / Appellant’s requests for a refund were refused / Held: Respondent had an obligation to ensure any advertisements accurately reflected the standard of accommodation / Property did not offer the level of comfort suggested by its five star advertisement / Nominal compensation of $100 justified to recognise the Appellant was misled by the property’s description / Respondent ordered to pay $100 / Claim allowed in part.

Insurance / Applicant purchased mobile phone and insurance policy from Respondent / Respondent unable to process insurance portion of Applicant’s order / Applicant unable to contact Respondent but did not want to cancel policy / Applicant claimed $20,000 for stress and inconvenience and refund of filing fee / Held: damages recoverable if there was evidence of actual loss / Applicant unable to provide evidence of actual loss suffered / Stress and inconvenience normal perils of conducting business / Threshold of exceptional circumstances for costs not made out / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Parking / Car owned by Applicant was parked on private premises / Parks labelled as private property where unauthorised vehicles would be issued infringement notices / Respondent issued infringement notices to Applicant totalling $513.44 / Applicant claimed car not driven by them / Applicant sought declaration she was not liable for $513.44 and reimbursement of $59 filing fee / Respondent counterclaimed $513.44 from Applicant / Respondent claimed Applicant had not proven they were not vehicle’s driver / Held: for person to be held financially liable for another’s actions, reasonable basis was required and none was presented / Unreasonable that Respondent believed driver was agent of Applicant / Respondent’s counterclaim not minor, trivial or unreasonable / Applicant took no action to establish she was not driver / Counterclaim needed to be resolved / Applicant not liable to pay $513.44 to Respondent / Respondent not liable to pay Applicant $59 filing fee / Claim allowed in p…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants purchased house from Respondents / After settlement Applicants discovered swimming pool was leaking / Applicants claimed $29,7500 for misrepresentation / Respondents counter-claimed $1,052.61 for travel expenses to attend hearing / Held: Applicants failed to prove they were given misleading representation about condition of pool from Respondents or their real estate agent / Misrepresentation required more than a representation that later turned incorrect / Respondents failed to prove Applicants abused Tribunal’s process / Though unsuccessful Applicants gave credible evidence and respected the process / Claim and counter-claim dismissed. 

Loan / Gift / Applicant is the Respondent’s father/ Applicant made two payments totalling $5,000.00 to Respondent / Respondent claimed the payments were a gift / Applicant claimed payments were a loan not a gift / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 from the Respondent / Held: both parties gave a credible account of their position / No correspondence from when the payments were requested or requesting the money be repaid / When money has been given by a family member there can be no presumption that it is a loan rather than a gift / Insufficient evidence to establish payment was a loan or a gift / No evidence indicating an intention to enter into a legal relationship / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Education / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant is training organisation / Applicant entered into an agreement with Respondent to provide training course / Course fees were $2,547,53 / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to pay fees / Applicant stated training advisor advised that Respondent had to put course on hold as he was busy / Respondent had actually lost his job and failed to receive notifications from Applicant / Applicant sought order that Respondent was liable to pay $2,547,53 / Held: not satisfied that Applicant advised Respondent of all his options when he lost his job / Applicant failed to deliver its services with reasonable skill and care / Likely that Respondent could have withdrawn from course and reduced his liability if advised that was an option / Respondent’s obligation to pay any more than half of fees was a loss suffered as a result of the Applicant’s failure / Respondent ordered to pay $1,273.77 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent for bathroom renovations / Applicant claimed poor project management and faulty workmanship / Project completed over 20 months after it began / Applicant claimed $22,000 compensation / Held: Respondent’s failures amounted to substantial breach of CGA / Respondent did not carry out renovations with reasonable care and skill / Wrong unit was ordered, installed poorly and persisted with ineffective fixes / Resulted in renovation not completed within reasonable time / Reduction in value of service appropriate compensation for the breach / Recognition given to Respondent for completing project despite issues / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a cat from the Respondent for $700/ Cat had medical issues and had to be euthanised soon after purchase / Applicant sought price of the cat as well as related vet costs, submitted total was $1,000.00 / Held: established that the Respondent was trader / Cat was not of acceptable quality when supplied to the Applicant / Applicant entitled to a refund for the purchase price of the cat as well as compensation for all vet related costs / Respondent ordered to pay $1,000.00 to the Applicant / Claim allowed.

Property / Limitation Act 2010 / In 2016, Respondent issued pre-purchase inspection report to Applicant for a property / In 2020, Applicant commissioned new report which revealed structural issues and defects not identified in earlier report / Applicant claimed faults and repair costs only became clear in 2024 / In 2025, Applicant filed claim for $30,000 / Respondent raised defence that claim was time barred / Held: Applicant’s claim was out of time / There was a six years limit to file claims after primary period and further three years to file if claimant had late knowledge / Applicant’s primary period started in 2016 when report was issued and ended in 2022 / Applicant’s late knowledge period started in 2020 when he was aware of noticeable defects which were not minor and ended in 2023 / Claim filed after both periods so time barred / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Respondent entered into a contract to have her mare inseminated with frozen semen from Applicant's stallion / Insemination unsuccessful and Respondent refused to pay invoice for services provided / Applicant claimed $2,043.30 in costs / Held: Respondent's mare owned by a horse breeding company / Contract states that companies who are in trade are excluded from implied conditions and warranties set out in the CGA / CGA does not apply / Applicant breached the contract by not putting Respondent's mare in a paddock / Not possible to make a link between failed pregnancy and management of Respondent's mare / Respondent did not suffer a loss as a result of breach / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,043.30 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building services / Building Act 2004 / Applicant was head contractor and engaged Respondent as subcontractor for bathroom renovation in 2021 / Work by Respondent was substandard requiring full remediation / Applicant claimed $30,000 from Respondent for remediation costs / Held: Tribunal estopped from reaching finding Respondent’s work was not substandard because of Building Practitioners Board (BPB) decision that work was substandard / Referee relied on BPB decision confirming serious structural defects / Respondent not entitled to remedy due to substantial nature of defects / Applicant entitled to recover reasonable costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant rented a room in Respondents' home / Applicant unhappy with house conditions and cancelled agreement / Applicant claimed full refund of bond and rent paid / Held: Applicant did not demonstrate issues observed amounted to breach of implied terms / Not uncommon for rodents to be present in roof of a property / Audible noise did not render space unfit for habitation nor impact right to quiet enjoyment / Landlord responsibilities under the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 did not apply / No implied duty in private contracts / Applicant not entitled to cancel contract / Applicant liable to pay three-day's rent / Applicant ordered to pay Respondents $159.86 / Parties to complete and sign bond form to enable return of $840 bond to Applicant / Claim dismissed.