Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased newly constructed unit from Respondent / Applicant raised issue with cladding / Applicant claimed $30,000 compensation / Held: no breach of contract as no method of fixing specified / Method of fixing is not a defect under the Building Act 2004 / No damages or other remedy available to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant claims debt from Respondent under credit contract assigned to it / Applicant claims entitlement to pursue debt under deed of assignment and last default date / Held: Applicant out of time in filing application / Applicant now prevented from pursuing any further claim against Respondent under assigned debt / Claim dismissed.

 Contract / Flat arrangement / Applicant agreed to rent a room in Respondent’s property /Applicant paid rent of $320.00 per week with one week paid in advance and bond / Applicant paid $960.00 to Respondent / Parties shook hands on the agreement / After three days Applicant terminated agreement and moved out of the property due to concerns over Respondent’s behaviour / Applicant advised Respondent she could keep one week’s rent payment but requested return of $640 bond / Respondent refused to return bond / Applicant also messaged Respondent for return of some shoes and food, which was refused / Applicant claimed $750.00 for bond refund and compensation for shoes and food / Held: Applicant entitled to terminate agreement with immediate effect due to feeling unsafe / Applicant entitled to refund of full bond and $150 for shoes and food / Respondent ordered to pay $790.00 / Claim granted.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and Respondent entered a contract for Applicant to build infinity cove / Respondent paid first two invoices but refused to pay the final two due to poor craftmanship / Respondent cancelled contract / Applicant claims payment of unpaid invoices, which total $11,035.07 / Respondent counterclaims $30,000.00 / Held: work did not meet contractual standard / Respondent justified in cancelling the contract / Respondent could not prove they should be awarded compensation for flooring, materials and rent / Applicant must pay Respondent $4,882.70 / claim dismissed / counterclaim partially granted.

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996/ Parties were neighbours / Respondents’ dog was found in Applicant’s garden / Applicant’s cat suffered injuries that required the cat to be euthanised / Whether Respondents liable for any damage caused by their dog / If yes, whether the Applicant was entitled to amount sought of $4,999,00 / Held: accepted that Respondent’s dog caused damage to the Applicant’s cat / Respondents liable for the damage caused by their dog / Respondents liable for vet bills not covered by insurance, $747.55 / Respondents also liable for cost of having the cat cremated and for the ashes box as it was not covered by insurance, $250 / Respondents also liable for Applicant’s travel costs, $17.60 / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $1,015.15 / Claim granted in part.

Tort / After a weather event a large tree crashed over Applicant’s driveway and car shelter completely blocked his access and caused damage to his property / Applicant claims damages against the Respondent for $9567.52 / Tree fell down due to extreme weather event not due to breach of duty of care by the respondent / Respondent liable to pay Applicants the cost for removal of fallen tree and grass seed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant the sum of $590.58 /Claim allowed in part.

Duty of Care / Motor Vehicles / Respondent crashed into parked vehicle belonging to Applicant / Respondent had undergone a medical event during time of crash / Applicant claims Respondent liable for damages to vehicle / Respondent claims due to medical event not liable / Medical evidence states Respondent fit to drive / Medical events can displace normal duty of care / Held: Medical event of Respondent displaced duty of care / Claim Dismissed.

Insurance / Negligence / Applicant and Respondent had a car collision / Applicant claimed compensation for damage to car / Held: Applicant proved Respondent drove negligently / Applicant not contributorily negligent / Applicant entitled to compensation to damage and recover cost of storage / Respondent's insurer ordered to pay Applicant $7,725 / Claim allowed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Applicant fixed dents and scratches and asked Respondent to pay / Applicant claim $4,903 for damages and repairs / Held: A misrepresentation claim must be an actual statement and omissions are usually insufficient / Respondent did not misrepresent car to Applicant / Applicant failed to inspect vehicle prior to purchase / Claim dismissed.  

Insurance / Applicant and Respondent involved in collision / Applicant claimed Respondent drove into his vehicle / Held: no physical evidence available to prove cause of loss to Applicant, even if Respondent's vehicle had contact with Applicant's vehicle / Applicant's vehicle in a pre-existing state such that full bumper replacement already necessary / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased used boat engine from Respondent / Applicant contacted Respondent / Applicant inspected the engine / Applicant and Respondent agreed on a purchase price of $8,000 / Applicant collected engine from Respondent / Applicant took engine to a motor company where company advised that the engine needed to be rebuilt / Applicant claims $8500 as refund and inspection for the motor company / Held: Transaction between parties was private / Respondent did not misrepresent the engine / Contract was not unconditional / Claim dismissed.

Commercial / Conversion / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant and Respondent engaged in commercial relationship / Respondent sold puppies and off-grid showers on commission basis / Applicant and Respondent dispute commission figures / Applicant claimed for return of two horses, dog and payment of $10,185 / Held: more evidence required to allow parties the opportunity to gather and submit further information / Hearing adjourned.

Contract law / Applicant purchased tuktuk vehicle from Respondent on the basis that it had current warrant of fitness and was road legal / Applicant took vehicle to mechanic and expressed concerns about vehicle / Vehicle subsequently failed warrant of fitness / Applicant and Respondent unable to come to final resolution / Applicant claims $13,500 from Respondent / Held: respondent's statement that vehicle had warrant of fitness and was road legal did not amount to misrepresentation as it was true at the time of purchase / claim dismissed.