Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to perform pre-purchase inspection report on a property / Applicants became aware of issues with windows and water egress after purchasing property / Applicants claim cost to replace windows, less deduction for double glazing benefit and including filing fee / What are the relevant terms of contract / Held: contract states report is visual inspection, to be used as guide, and a reasonable attempt to identify faults on the day of the inspection / Applicants informed inspection limited to visual inspection / Whether inspection been carried out with reasonable care and skill, if not what is remedy / Held: insufficient evidence to establish Respondnt failed to use reasonable care and skill in producing report or conductin the inspection / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants entered into a contract with the Respondent to hire a caravan / Applicants paid $2,100.12 for hire / Respondent emailed customers stating that all of their customers over the age of 12 would need to have Covid-19 vaccinations to use their caravans / Applicants emailed the Respondent stating that their 12 year old child was not vaccinated / Respondent said the Applicants could keep their booking as their child was on the edge of the limit / Respondent also asked whether the Applicants wished to keep the booking / Applicants sent an email indicating they would be cancelling their booking and seeking a refund / Respondent confirmed that the booking has been cancelled / Responded refunded the Applicants $1,890.12 / Respondents did not refund the reservation charge / Applicants claim the sum of $255 for the reservation charge and the Tribunal application fee / Whether the Applicants unconditionally accepted the offer to cancel the booking and receive a full refund / Wh…

Contract / Tort / Trespass / Applicant instructed his son to park in a private carpark / Respondent issued Applicant with a letter to pay $95 for the breach and $75 late payment / Applicant advised Respondent he had not received the first breach letter but paid the $95 / Applicant later received notice from a debt collection agency to pay $288.75 / Applicant sought declaration he was not liable to pay any further monies to the Respondent and claimed reimbursement of the filing fee / Whether the Applicant trespassed onto land by parking without authorisation / Whether the Applicant was a party to a contract by parking where he did / Whether the Applicant was entitled to a declaration that he was not liable to pay the breach fees / Held: $95 paid by Applicant for trespassing onto the Respondent’s land was more than sufficient compensation / No contract between the parties / No foundation for the Respondent’s notice seeking late payment or debt collectors’ fees / Applicant was entitled to…

Property / Parties are neighbours and share adjoining property boundary / Applicant to replace septic tank and seeks order for removal of trees on Respondent’s property / Whether Tribunal has jurisdiction to make an order for removal of trees / Whether roots have grown from Respondent’s property and caused damage / Whether roots from Respondent’s property need to be removed to install septic system / Whether debris from Respondent’s trees blocked drain and caused damage / Whether Applicant entitled to compesation / Whether Tribunal able to make award for Tribunal Filing fee / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to order removal of trees / Removal of trees not within Tribunal’s jurisdiction per s 10(1) of the Disputes Tribunal Act / Root damage claims dismissed because no evidence of damage to property / Debris damage claim struck out as it relates to request to remove trees / Claim for compensation dismissed / Tribunal has limited ability to make award of costs per s 43 Disputes …

Negligence / Respondent poured concrete outside Applicant’s commercial car yard / concrete splashed on Applicant’s cars damaging paint / Respondent paid $562.50 towards paint repair / Applicant claims Respondent was negligent in pouring concrete / Applicant claims they were not contributorily negligent by not protecting cars on property / Applicant claims $9,420.00 for cost of repairing paintwork on car, depreciation on car and Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent negligent in pouring concrete / Respondent did not take steps to limit potential for concrete to splash into neighbouring properties / Held: Applicant was not contributorily negligent / Applicant’s cars were on property / Respondent did not give adequate warning of potential concrete splashing / Held: Respondent to pay Applicant $1,687.50 / Respondent only liable for cost of paint repair / Applicant could have avoided depreciation / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to award costs / Respondent already paid $562.50 of $2,2…

Contract / Applicants entered share milking contract with Respondents as trustees of ABC trust / Respondents terminated contract / Final milk contract payment made to trustees in place of Applicants / Applicants claimed $16,456.38 plus GST and interest in relation to final milk contract payment and filing fee / Held: contract stipulates that on termination Applicants receive Contract Payment for any unpaid milk contract payment without deduction or withholding any amount and Trustees have no right to set off in relation to payment / Applicants entitled to Contractor Payment which Respondents withheld / Trustees acted in breach of contract by not paying final Contractor Payment to the Applicants / Trustees not entitled to deduct costs claimed from the final Contractor Payment / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $17,336.99 to the Applicants

Limitation Act 2010 / Incapacity / Applicant purchased unit in a unit title development from the Respondent in a mortgagee sale / Dispute arose over who was to pay outstanding levies owed on unit / Applicant paid levies without prejudice to seek compensation  / Applicant sought $30,000 in levies, interest and costs incurred when levies were paid / Whether the claim was out of time / Whether it was just to allow the claim on the grounds of incapacity / Held:  Applicant filed claim six years after settlement / Respondent was entitled to defend the claim on the grounds that it was out of time / Applicant was incapacitated for periods of time / However, Applicant had capacity to instruct a lawyer during in the six year period before the claim was to be heard / Extension in filing unjust / Late filing of claim delayed the Respondent's ability to defend claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant booked Respondent for her services as a make-up artist for a wedding photoshoot / Applicant paid a deposit of $225 and booked airline tickets and accommodation / Respondent chose not to undertake the job because of concerns around COVID-19 / Respondent refunded deposit / Applicant claimed refund for booked flights, accommodation and filing fee / Whether Respondent breached the contract by not travelling for the job or whether contract frustrated by events / If the Respondent breached the contract what losses did Applicant suffer /  Whether Respondent was entitled to flight amount and accommodation / Whether Respondent entitled to filing fee / Held: not satisfied contract was frustrated / contract not impossible to perform as Applicant secured services of another make-up artist for the shoot / Respondent failing to perform contract was a breach of the contract / Applicant suffered loss of costs of flights booked for Respondent …

Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s bull was out of its paddock causing collision that resulted in the total loss of the applicant’s ute / Applicant claimed the value of the ute plus the Tribunal filing fee / Held: evidence relating to reasons the fencing may have been compromised at the time is insufficient to prove negligence on respondent’s part / Respondent has no liability for applicant’s reasonable losses and the claim is dismissed

Contract / Applicant parked at pay and display carparking site monitored by Respondent / Applicant purchased and displayed three hour ticket / Respondent towed Appellant’s car within three hours / Applicant claims they did not breach contractual parking provisions justifying towing / Applicant claims $750.93, being towing charge, Uber fare, various time costs, Tribunal filing fee and miscellaneous costs / Held: insufficient evidence to prove Applicant breached parking provisions / towing unjustified / Held: costs awarded for unjustified tow charge and Uber charge only / claim upheld, Respondent ordered to pay $306.58 to Applicant

Contract / passing of ownership / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant advertised ice-cream machine on TradeMe / Respondent agreed to pay a non-refundable $500 deposit on machine and pay for transportation in order to inspect machine / parties agreed if machine passed inspection, Respondent would pay the remaining $6,500 for the machine / despite Applicant and Respondent’s agent damaged machine when loading it for inspection, machine taken to Respondent for inspection / due to damage, Respondent did not accept machine  / Applicant seeks remainder of purchase price and $180 for filing the claim with the Tribunal / Held: property in goods transfers on acceptance, per ss 144 and 146 of the Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / parties agreed acceptance would occur if and when machine passed inspection /  / despite Respondent’s agent’s involvement in damage occurring to machine, risk passers with property, unless otherwise agreed, per s 148 / machine remained in Applicant’s r…

Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / transfer of title / Applicant purchased motorbike from Respondent / bike had been stolen from its original owner and was sold to the Respondent / Police advised Applicant to return bike to its original owner/ Applicant claimed return of the purchase price, plus transport costs and filing fee / Held: bike stolen property / seller cannot pass on title to a good that he or she does not have / implied condition which entitles buyer to a refund and costs if seller does not have title / exceptions to rule did not apply / absence of conviction and  fact that Respondent had possession of goods did not affect the true owner’s rights / Respondent liable to refund purchase price of bike and cost of transporting it back to original owner, but not filing fee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,850.00