Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant and her husband were unable to board an international flight with the Respondent airline / Applicant had checked in online and had no luggage to check in / Upon arrival at the airport, Applicant and her husband were advised that they had to print their boarding passes before proceeding beyond the security checks / They were advised that their boarding passes could not be printed and they would not be able to board the flight / Applicant was advised that they would need to rebook their flights / Applicant and her husband booked international flights for the following day / Applicant sought $1237.90 from for two one-way international flights ($834.90), one night’s accommodation ($295) and meals ($108) / Held: terms and conditions on the ticket and boarding passes were not sufficiently clear / Information provided by the Respondent was open to interpretation and not fit for purpose for customers like the Applicant / Respondent breached the contract by not allowing the…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant painted Respondent's property / Respondent disputed invoice / Respondent paid partial amount only / Applicant claimed payment for remaining balance of invoice / Held: parties did not reach an agreement as to price / No certainty on cost of job / Applicant made a misleading representation as to the price of services / Applicant breached FTA / Not reasonable for Respondent to charge apprentice painters the same as experienced painters / Reasonable figure calculated higher than alternative quote sourced by Respondent as four coats of paint were needed / Respondent liable to pay part of remaining balance / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Quasi contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Applicant moved out of flat / Applicant refused to pay rent further than five weeks until Respondent found a new flatmate / Respondent reduced Applicant's bond / Applicant claimed rent and debt collector costs / Held: agreed in the flat that a flatmate remained liable to pay rent until a new flatmate was found / Therefore, Applicant obliged to pay all the rent until a new flatmate was found / Applicant's flatmates not liable to pay debt collection costs / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant hit a pothole while driving down a highway / Applicant claimed $1,113.35 from Respondent for repair costs and filing fee / Held: notice of potential potholes was not a reasonable expectation in the circumstances / Unable to find that the Respondent failed in its duty of care to inspect the road, repair potholes promptly and provide reasonable warning of known hazards / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract formation / Respondents purchased 5 trophy stags from Applicant / Applicant believed contract was for purchase of 16 stags at $4250 each / Respondents believed contract was for purchase of 5 stags at $3250 each / Second Respondent inspected 45 stags at Applicant's farm and 16 stags were put aside leading Respondent to believe agreement reached to purchase all 16 stags at $4250 / Respondent only took 3 stags initially / Applicant sent $78,200 invoice to Respondents / Third Respondent collected two more stags a day after invoice sent and advised Applicant that Respondents would not purchase any more stags /  Respondents paid $24,437.50 to Applicant for the 5 stags received / Applicant claimed $30,000 for losses allegedly incurred from Respondents' failure to perform contract for purchase of 16 stags / Held: Contract existed but not proven that purchase of 16 stags was a term / Applicant's strongest evidence shows Applicant believed Respondent agreed to purchase 16 sta…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Unknown person set up accounts with the Respondent in the Applicant’s name / Person created the accounts using the Applicant’s passport details / Applicant was not aware of the accounts until he was contacted by a debt collection agency / Applicant disputed the debt on the grounds that he did not establish the accounts and did not receive any services from the Respondent / Respondent ultimately cancelled the invoice and the debt recovery action / Applicant sought compensation for travel and inconvenience relating to disputing the debt / Held: accepted that the Respondent owed the Applicant indirectly a duty of reasonable care and skill / However, Applicant failed to prove that the Respondent’s processes were inadequate or outside of the industry norms / Consumer law claim unsuccessful / Tribunal only had the jurisdiction to consider the claim on the consumer law basis / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Bailment / Applicant loaned First Respondent his car while overseas / Both the Applicant and First Respondent were on learner licenses / Second Respondent, First Respondent’s father, disabled the car out of concern that First Respondent was driving illegally / Applicant instructed First Respondent to return the car / After returning from overseas, Applicant discovered damage to the car and sought $11,098.75 from the Respondents’ for repairs and loss of wages / Held: front bumper and radiator support were damaged while the car was in First Respondent’s care / First Respondent must pay Applicant $2,120.25 for repairs and $400, agreed price for loan of the car / Applicant’s claim for loss of wages denied as he could have found an alternative way to get to work / Second Respondent not liable for any of the damage / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant is a garage and ordered an engine from Respondent to install in a customer's car / Engine would not turn over after being installed and had to be returned to Respondent / Respondent said engine was inspected and turned over before it was sent to Applicant / Applicant discovered engine had come from water-damaged car and said they would not have purchased it had they known this / Applicant claimed $3036 for the labour costs in installing and removing faulty engine / Held: engine was not reasonably fit for purpose in meaning of s 138(2) CCLA as it could not be used in Applicant's customer's car / s 138(1) CCLA means CCLA applies as Respondent knew Applicant was a garage and Respondents would know any parts purchased by Applicants would be installed in Applicant's customer's cars / Labour costs incurred by Applicant were reasonably foreseeable result of Applicant having to install and then remove and return faulty engi…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a spa from Respondent for $11,995 / Four years later, a fault occurred with the spa and it stopped heating the water / Applicant contacted Respondent for repairs and was advised the spa was no longer under warranty and a $150 charge would apply for a technician inspection / Technician advised that the circulation pump needed to be replaced and would not be covered under warranty / Applicant paid $189 for the circulation pump and a further $149.99 for installation / Applicant claimed for the technician’s inspection fee, circulation pump and the installation cost amounting to $488.99 / Held: evidence suggested fault with spa may have been caused by improper water management by the Applicant / Spa found to be of acceptable quality / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Damage to property / Person was driving Applicant's car when stone struck and damaged windscreen / Alleged by person driving Applicant's car that stone was flicked up from garden machinery operated by Respondent / Respondent said area stone alleged to have come from was not mown / Applicant claimed $1744.80 for cost of windscreen replacement / Held: person driving Applicant's car had not proved that Respondent had used garden machinery negligently even if Respondent had caused damage / Damage to property claim required damage to have arisen from negligent act and presence of damage alone insufficient to prove claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Jurisdiction / Applicant had contract to form right of way at holiday park (Park) owned by 2nd Respondent / Applicant instructed to do additional work authorised by Park managers and consultant to 3rd Respondent / 3rd Respondent paid some of Applicant's invoices for extra work / Invoices disputed by 3rd Respondent outlined in spreadsheet but Applicants did not account for payments in line with spreadsheet / Applicant considered some payments Respondent made as unpaid because of payments’ misallocation / Applicant claimed $28, 575 for non-payment / Applicant's claim unsuccessful as Respondent could prove paid invoices / Applicant made new claim for unpaid invoices after correct allocation of payments still showed outstanding invoices / Held: New claim was reformulation of unsuccessful claim attempting to correct errors in initial claim / New claim concerns same dispute about same events involving same parties as unsuccessful claim / Res judicata and Henderson principle applie…

Consumer law / Building / Building Act 2004 / Applicants purchased a new house built by the Respondent / Applicants noticed paint deteriorating on the garage door within first year of ownership / Applicants later noticed more doors deteriorating and paint work chipping off / Applicants advised Respondent, who considered problem was due to wear and tear / Applicants claimed for compensation to have the paintwork repaired / Held: implied warranty that doors and paintwork would be of acceptable quality / Not proven that paintwork was defective / Areas of deterioration were in high use areas only / More likely than not that it was a wear and tear and maintenance issue for which the homeowner was responsible / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Applicant’s dog was attacked by a dog that came onto Applicant’s property / Dog belonged to the Respondent’s grandson / Applicant’s dog was injured in the attack and required vet treatment / Respondent’s grandson paid vet costs / Afterwards, Respondent installed a electric dog containment system / Applicant’s dog was attacked again by the same canine on the Applicant’s property / Attack dog was not wearing the containment collar / Applicant’s dog required vet treatment / Applicant sought $832.30 vet costs from Respondent / Held: Respondent was the registered owner of the dog when the second attack occurred / Attack dog did not have the containment collar on when the incident happened / Reasonable to infer lack of reasonable care by Respondent when the incident occurred/ Respondent legally liable for the Applicant’s dog’s injuries / Respondent ordered to pay $832.30 / Claim allowed.