Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Employment / Respondent enrolled his son at the Applicant school / Respondent signed the enrolment form but did not sign the separate attendance dues agreement / Respondent's son attended the school for four years / Respondent made minimal payments / Respondent claimed he was not contractually obligated to pay the remaining dues due to lack of a signed agreement and uncertainty around the dues amount / Applicant claimed $6,502.94 in unpaid attendance dues / Held: Respondent had entered into a binding contract by signing the enrolment form, which included a clause agreeing to pay attendance dues / Respondent ordered to pay $6,502.94 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant hired vehicle and purchased insurance from Respondent / Applicant drove vehicle into signpost and damaged underside of engine / Respondent claimed policy did not cover engine damage as it came under underbody damage policy exclusion / Applicant disputed this and claimed declaration of non-liability for $4,999 / Held: more likely than not engine damage caused by Applicant / Evidence of oil leakage and large crack to underside of vehicle after collision / Frontal impact not significant enough to cause damage to underbody / Engine damage was underneath body of vehicle so falls within the underbody exclusion / Under DTA if claim for declaration of non-liability in respect of liquidated demand dismissed, Tribunal may make order for Applicant to repay Respondent / Applicant to pay Respondent $5,641.73 for underbody repair costs and other costs related to car hire / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant purchased washing machine from Respondent for $2 / Respondent claimed collection by 10am condition of sale / Applicant did not collect by deadline so Respondent gave machine to third party / Applicant claimed $4,999 for value of machine / Held: no evidence collection deadline was condition of sale / Deadline not communicated to Applicant before or after sale / Respondent breached contract by disposing machine without providing Applicant reasonable opportunity for collection / Insufficient evidence washing machine had higher valuation than purchase price / Respondent to pay Applicant $2 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and family booked flights with two separate airlines  / First set of tickets from Respondent with international stopovers and second set of tickets with another airline / Respondent initially refused to check them in because Applicant’s passport expired in less than six months / They missed connecting flights and Applicant had to book alternative flights / Applicant claimed Respondent wrongly denied them boarding and sought $30,000 / Held: Respondent acted correctly by denying Applicant to board but incorrectly by not boarding his family / Applicant’s flights with Respondent ended at country which required passports to be valid for minimum six months / Applicant did not meet legal conditions for entry so Respondent not liable for his costs / Respondent failed to act with reasonable skill and care by not boarding family / No issues with family's passports so should have so should have boarded them / Respondent liable to pay replace…

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to complete fencing on property / Applicant disputed labour charges included offsite work (preparation and travel time) / No written agreement only verbal with no witness / Applicant paid full amount less offsite labour / Applicant claimed non-liability for offsite labour comprised of $885 and debt collection fees of $708.17 / Held: Respondent’s recollection where labour charges included preparation and travel preferred / It was a reasonable and acceptable business practise for job that spread over several days / Applicant liable to pay offsite labour charges / Tribunal found not a term of contract that debt collection costs could be charged on overdue accounts / Even if agreed sending debt to collection was inappropriate due to presence of dispute / Applicant not liable for debt collection costs / Applicant to pay Respondent $885 / Claim allowed in part.

Civil / Motor vehicle accident liability / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a collision at a give way intersection / Applicant was in front and claimed to have stopped due to an approaching vehicle / Respondent believed Applicant was accelerating away and began to check traffic / During that time, Applicant allegedly stopped suddenly, leading to Respondent rear-ending Applicants vehicle / Applicant's insurer claimed the costs of repairs / Held: Tribunal found Respondent fully liable for the collision / Even if Applicant had braked suddenly, the rear driver was solely responsible for avoiding a collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $8,310.57 / Claim granted.

Contract / Land Transport Act 1988 / Car registered to the Applicant parked in a car park reserved for customers / Respondent issued a parking breach notice to the Applicant / Applicant advised she was not driving at the time the car was parked / Applicant paid the Respondent $10.40 / Applicant claimed she loaned the car but did not give the driver authority to park in a car park / Respondent claimed the Applicant was liable for the actions of the driver as an agency relationship had been formed / Held: accepted that the Applicant was not the driver of the car / Applicant did not give the authority to contract on the owner’s behalf / No agency as allegedly by the Respondent / Applicant not liable for any amount in relation to parking breach notice /  / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract law / Parties were in a relationship / Applicant claimed to have loaned respondent $8,739, asserting it was a loan not a gift / Applicant now claims the loan amount back from respondent / Held: on the evidence, there was an intention by both parties to create a legally binding agreement for repayment / Arrangement was more than a social arrangement; it was a contract for a loan / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,739 by 1 September 2025, claim allowed.

Civil / Contract/ Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant hired Respondent to provide roof repairs / Prospective buyer’s property inspection identified defects in Respondent’s repairs / Respondents claimed the repairs were performed to a reasonable standard in the context of agreement / Other builders had advised the Applicant to replace the roof for a much higher quoted price than the Respondent quoted for repairs / Applicant claimed that Respondent failed to deliver on the purpose of providing sufficient repairs to enable sale of the house as buyer withdrew due to roof defects / The Applicant claimed $12,338 in compensation / Respondent’s counter-claimed for overrun hours to the value of $4,058 / Held: Applicant opted for the cost-effective repair option provided by the Respondent / These roof repairs could not be expected to yield the same quality or saleability as a full roof replacement / Repairs did not represent a substantial failure by Respondents / However aspects of the repa…

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.

Contract law / Applicant engaged by Respondent to report on water supply / Business relationship later expanded to water plant being installed, maintained and serviced by Applicant / Latest agreement not signed by parties / Applicant continued to service Respondent but Respondent refused to pay / Applicant claimed $30,000 / Held: contract was for ongoing service with opportunity for review not tender / No evidence Respondent re-negotiated terms or cancelled contract / Absent of variation or cancellation reasonable for Applicant to continue service per previous arrangement until different arrangement made / Applicant’s belief reinforced by Respondent’s continued jobs requests and invoices issued never queried / Interest clause became penalty if unconscionable or extravagant or detrimental on contract-breaker out of proportion to innocent party’s interest / Applicant’s interest rate of 10% would have been unconscionable but for Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit / Applicant’s interest claim…

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant was driving in a 100km/h speed zone when two dogs owned by Respondent ran onto the road and collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent admitted responsibility explaining he did not close his gate properly / Applicant’s insurer repaired Applicant’s vehicle and claimed compensation for the repair costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care by failing to keep his dogs under control / Damage to Applicant’s vehicle was consistent with the collision / Repair costs were reasonable and properly evidenced / Respondent ordered to pay $7,175.40 to Applicant’s insurer / Claim allowed.