Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Tort / Negligence / Land Transport Road User Rules 2004 / Respondent backed his car into side of Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed damages / Held: Applicant proved it is more likely than not that Respondent was responsible for collision / Applicant was not speeding and cause of collision was failure by Respondent to ensure way was clear before backing the vehicle / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,847.25 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant carried out carpet fitting for Respondent in 2021 / In 2023, Applicant claimed Respondent short changed him for an amended quote / Applicant sought $805.00 / Respondent sought costs on the grounds the claim was frivolous and vexatious / Held: not proven that amended quote was offered and accepted / No arguable basis for claim for extra payment / Claim was frivolous and vexatious / Appropriate to award costs / Applicant ordered to pay $360.00 costs to Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant for building services / Applicant sought payment for two invoices / First invoice of $19,440.75 was for consulting services / Respondents signed a contract agreeing to fees / Second invoice of $10,627.94 was for justified extras added to contract price / Respondents believed they had already paid second invoice but failed to show sufficient evidence / Respondents counterclaimed for $7,400.00 for incomplete work or work completed incorrectly / Respondent provided work descriptions which the Applicant agreed to pay during the hearing, totalling $1,085.00 / Held: Respondents ordered to pay the Applicant of $28,983.69, subtraction of successful portions of the claim from counterclaim / Claim granted and counter-claim granted in part.

Contract / Applicants booked return international flights with Respondent / Respondent prevented Applicants from departing stated erroneously that they needed visas / Applicants claimed Respondent unjustifiably refused to allow them on international flight / Applicants said resulting delay caused expense, inconvenience and embarrassment / Applicants claimed compensation of $26,352.00 / Held: Respondent not justified in refusing to allow Applicants to board aircraft / Respondent’s incorrect view of Applicants’ documentation meant they experienced considerable inconvenience, stress as well as additional expense / Applicants entitled to compensation but not ten times value of each flight / Compensation enough to recognise inconvenience and stress for an honest mistake / Respondent ordered to pay $3,220.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant provided cleaning services for Respondent / Respondent complained several times about cleaning quality / Applicant obtained a new owner who requested Respondent give their cleaning another chance / Applicant agreed but was still unhappy with the service provided / Respondent terminated Applicant’s contract / Applicant sent invoices which the Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed $3,552.12 for unpaid invoices / Held: there was a contract between the parties / Clause requiring three months’ notice to terminate services was unduly harsh and unconscionable / Applicant notified multiple times about sub-par cleaning / Applicant had ample opportunity to rectify the situation, but did not / Respondent did not give any notice before terminating services / Respondent ordered to pay $1,776.06, fifty percent of claimed amount / Claim allowed in part.  

Property / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant claimed water from Respondent's property flows to his property causing flooding and accumulation of mud and debris / Applicant claimed for a solution and not compensation / Held: Disputes Tribunal jurisdiction is limited to matter arising out of contract, damage and loss to property / Tribunal cannot order a person to undertake drainage works or maintenance to own land / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to make order required by Applicant / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicants approached Respondent about supplying a kitset farm shed that could be converted into a dwelling / Respondent drew up plans and provided a quote, which the Applicants accepted / Kitset was not supplied / Applicant sought compensation for cost of additional cladding / Held: parties had a contract for the Respondent to provide a shed /Respondent was contracted to include cladding and flashings, which he failed to do / Respondent liable for cost of materials he failed to supply / Respondent ordered to pay $14,404.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to install new shower / Shower continued to leak after attempts to reseal / Applicant engaged another company to fix shower / Applicant claimed their $1,200 payment to Respondent / Held: Respondent did not provide shower installation services with reasonable care and skill / Failure was of substantial character / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and get refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,200 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to design and supply headstone with glass plaque / After design was fully confirmed and paid for, Respondent informed Applicants glass plaques were not authorised in cemeteries in their city / Respondent had earlier assured it would check local authority requirements to ensure smooth process / Respondent offered substitution, but Applicants claimed this would completely alter design / Applicants claimed $8464 refund and $6,536 for emotional distress / Held: Respondent’s failure to notify Applicants of key information affecting design choice was failure of reasonable care and skill / Applicants entitled to cancel contract and receive refund / Emotional distress is foreseeable consequence of breach of contracts for services related to bereavement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $8,464 refund and $500 compensation for inconvenience and distress / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $8,750.00 / Respondent stated there were no issues with vehicle and no money owing / After purchase numerous defects were found / Applicant took vehicle to mechanic who estimated repairs would cost $6,967.18 and charged $69.00 for the inspection / Applicant also discovered Respondent still owed finance on the vehicle / Held: Respondent did not have clear title to sell vehicle / Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicant inspected, test drove and accepted vehicle before purchase, therefore lost right to reject vehicle and obtain refund / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $7,000.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Guarantees / Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant bought a hockey stick from Respondents on 30 April / Applicant noticed the hockey stick was damaged and contacted Respondents / Applicant brought a claim against Respondent for breaches of the Consumer Guarantee Act 1993 claiming the stick was not fit for purpose / Applicant seeks refund of purchase price of the hockey stick / Onus is on applicant to prove her case / Applicant has not proven that the damage caused to hockey stick was due to defect rather than the stick being used on abrasive surfaces / Claim is dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased an e-scooter from Respondent for $1,999 / Scooter stopped working after 6 months / Applicant requested refund / Respondent refused due to water damage / Held: scooter was significantly water damaged / Scooter sold on the basis that it was suitable for commuting, even when it was raining / Scooter became contaminated after 6 months’ of normal commuting use indicated it was not of acceptable quality / Scooter not capable of being repaired / Case for a refund made out / Respondent ordered to pay $1,999.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for engine repair / Respondent provided Applicant with quote for full engine replacement, but only replaced top part of engine in a bid to save costs for Applicant / After Respondent completed work, Applicant took vehicle to several mechanics who reported the engine number was the same as when the vehicle was registered / Applicant claimed he did not receive a full engine replacement and sought refund of $2,656.75 paid for the engine and associated repair costs / Held: Insufficient evidence Respondent did not use reasonable care and skill in repairing vehicle / Respondent had informed Applicant that only the top part of the engine had been replaced / Applicant did not provide Respondent with opportunity to remedy any potential failure / Claim dismissed.