Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Animal ownership / Applicant formed a bond with a cat who regularly visited her / Notice was placed on a community page asking if anyone owned the cat and no response was received/ Applicant decided the cat was stray cat in need of care / Applicant took him to the vet to be vaccinated, arranged for him to be microchipped, and also obtained pet insurance / Subsequently, Respondent visited her and asked that she not feed his cat / Since then the cat does not visit the Applicant as he used to / Applicant claimed for an order that she take possession of the cat and be compensated for expenses incurred and for emotional distress endured / Held: cat is owned by Respondent / Despite how endearing the cat is the Applicant was not entitled to assert herself in the Respondent’s place / Applicant had no title to the cat / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged on contract by Applicant in its clinic / Applicant claimed Respondent provided treatments to family members and others at staff discount rate without authority / Applicant claimed $2,690 refund for 14 treatments given without authority / Held: Applicant has not proved more likely than not that treatments were given without Applicant's authority / More likely than not that Respondent did not receive commission on treatment given at staff discounted rate / No financial motivation for Respondent to give staff discounts for clients other than her mother / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant did work on hoses in Respondent’s truck / Work was unable to be tested / Hose later developed leak / Respondent engaged different company repair leak, did not pay Applicant’s invoice / Applicant claimed $1,535.89 for unpaid invoice / Held: Respondent obligated to mitigate loss arising from leak / Applicant should have been given opportunity to remedy leak / Some expenses would still have been incurred by Respondent, even if Applicant given opportunity to remedy / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $776.89, being cost of invoice less $759.00 to compensate Respondent’s immediate losses / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondents engaged Applicant to carry out spring clean of their property / Applicant quoted $1650.00 for inside house and $550.00 for inside and outside windows and joinery / Respondents accepted quote / Respondents were not satisfied with clean and believed the tiles should have been machined / Respondents paid $700.00 towards invoice / Applicant argued Respondents’ expectations were unreasonable and machining the tiles was not included in quote / Applicant claimed $1500.00 for balance of invoice / Held: photographic evidence showed number of areas where work was done poorly and not with reasonable care and skill / Respondents had to put in many hours of work to remedy those areas / Respondents entitled to damages of $1006.00 for reduction in value of service received / Respondents ordered to pay $494.00 balance of invoice / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked 5-day trekking activity with Respondent / Applicant's horse kicked out at other horses during ride / Applicant elected to leave trek after discussion with Respondent / Applicant claimed $6,900 partial reimbursement of payment / Respondent counter-claimed compensation for costs associated with Applicant's claim and WorkSafe complaint / Held: Respondent had a duty to provide horse reasonably suitable for trekking / Not proven that Respondent failed to provide a horse that is reasonably fit / Veterinary advice did not recommend keeping horse away from trekking until the wound had fully healed / No evidence that other riders experienced problems or expressed concerns about the horse's physical health or temperament / Applicant had no grounds to cancel contract / No legal bases for Applicant to be held liable for Respondent's costs / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked a return bus trip with Respondent/ Applicant got off the bus to go to the toilet and the bus departed without her / Applicant was then rebooked on the next bus, but she did not arrive until 6.00 am the following day / Applicant claimed $4999.00 for stress, clothes, backpackers fee and a meal, but primarily claimed to penalise the driver and the company / Held: Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Driver had a responsibility to take reasonable steps to check Applicant was on board before departing  / Applicant entitled to compensation for reasonably foreseeable consequential loss / Respondent paid $170 in good will which would sufficiently address Applicant’s expenses / Applicant entitled to further $150.00 compensation for distress and inconvenience and as a punitive measure / Respondent ordered to pay $150 / Claim allowed in part.

Jurisdiction / Section 11 Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Parents of applicants died intestate / Applicants claim funeral costs against Respondents who is their sibling / Held: Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a claim of money left intestate / Claim is struck out.

Contract / Applicant provide training services and courses in psychological first aid / Applicant contacted Respondent and offered its service to develop psychological first aid course / Applicant delivered pilot course after which Respondent decided not to offer the course to its members and staff / Applicant claimed $16,468.28 compensation for time and intellectual property / Held: Applicant unable to prove on balance of probabilities that it was engaged by Respondent to provide an agreed amount of future courses / Applicant not entitled to compensation for costs claimed / Disputes Tribunal unable to award costs to compensate for use of intellectual property due to lack of jurisdiction / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants missed flight / Applicants claim for the cost of new airline tickets and for a hotel / Held: respondent took reasonable steps to notify applicants about updated departure time / Respondent made two announcements directing applicants to go to the gate / Respondent sent message to applicant / Respondent phoned applicant’s travel agent who called applicant / Respondent sent staff to look for applicants but did not find them / Outcome: claim dismissed

Contract law / Applicant to carry out manufacturing work for Respondent / Respondent offered to sell its rug business to the Applicant but the Respondent declined / Respondent sold those assets to a third party and engaged the third party to do manufacturing work which the Applicant had been doing for the Respondent / Applicant claims compensation for work it would have had if Respondent had not gone out of business / Held: By giving manufacturing work to a third party, Respondent was in breach of its contractual obligations to the Applicants / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,434.00 as compensation.

Contract / Property / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Following pre-settlement inspection Applicant sent list of issues to Respondent / Issues disputed and settlement proceeded / Applicant claimed $4,850 for attending to various items / Respondent counterclaimed for time off work responding to claim, and filing fee / Held: Any water leaking from connection points is at a very minor level / Hot water connection in laundry not in reasonable working order at settlement / Rangehood in reasonable working order / Insufficient evidence to prove there was a problem with the toilet / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $20 for breach of vendors’ warranty / Claim allowed in part / Counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $9,750 / During test drive, radio and rear-view camera electronics not working / Respondent informed Applicant he had ordered module that would fix electronic defects, would supply to Applicant when it arrived, installation would cost $250 / Applicant also noticed tow bar missing, Respondent said he would supply one / Respondent never supplied module or tow bar, avoided Applicant’s efforts to follow up / Applicant claimed $3,622.50 replacement cost of module, $507 for actual installation cost, and $120 for tow bar / Held: Applicant purchased vehicle in reliance on Respondent’s representations / Applicant entitled to claimed amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,249.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant disembarked train and was walking towards a footpath between parked cars / Applicant tripped on the drawbar of a parked trailer owned by Respondent / Applicant injured his wrist and head and broke his glasses / Applicant claimed Respondent owed a duty of care to warn people of the existence of the trailer drawbar resting on the concrete / Applicant claimed for replacement cost of glasses / Held: trailer was of reasonable size and could be clearly seen / Respondent entitled to park trailer in the carpark / Respondent did not owe Applicant a duty of care to hazard mark the trailer drawbar / Claim dismissed.