Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Warranties / Building Act 2004 (BA) / Applicants purchased property with various building and plumbing works done / Applicants discovered water leaking from bathroom to lounge ceiling / Previous owners put them in contact with Respondent 1 who had done the work / Respondent 1 agreed to fix leak but was unable to arrange a contractor to do work / Respondent 1 offered to pay for repairs if Applicants arranged contractor / Applicants claim Respondent 2 as a subcontractor for Respondent 1 is also liable / Applicants claim Respondent 1 did not carry out work with reasonable care and skill as per BA s 362I(1)(d)(i) / Held: Respondent 2 was not party to original works so not liable / Work was not up to BA standard / Applicants are entitled to $8226.74 as cost of getting repairs done / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Respondents rented a storage unit from Applicant company / Applicant company made three claims / Firstly, Applicants claimed Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / Secondly, Applicants claimed Respondents were responsible for damage to  storage units caused by a third party / Lastly, Applicants claimed Respondents had abandoned the storage unit / Held: Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / However, Applicant had not taken steps to minimise its loss / Respondents as renters were responsible for damages caused by third parties to their unit and adjoining units / Respondents did not abandon the storage unit, but the Applicants were within their rights to remove and dispose of the goods in the unit / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $200 in costs to repair storage unit damage / Applicant could not claim the cost of breach of contract as they had breached the contract themselves by not providing the second swipe card / Claim gran…

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) /  Parties owned adjoining sections / Applicant built a retaining wall and fence / Applicant asked Respondent to share 50% of the costs, $1656.05 / Respondent only agreed to pay $1000 / Applicant claimed $3,086.30 for the full cost of the retaining wall and $1656.05 for fencing as well as legal fees and interest / Held: retaining wall was only required because of the actions of the Applicant’s builder / Fence was attached to the retaining wall so deemed part of the same structure / Applicant failed to serve the Respondent with a FA notice / Respondent not compelled to pay for the retaining wall/fence structure / Interest and legal fees are only awarded in exceptional circumstances and do not apply here / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving her car down a street on a day where there was high wind / A branch from Applicant’s tree fell and hit the bonnet of the Respondent’s car / The vehicle was damaged in the incident and since written off / Applicant claims $4,915 for the car repair and transport costs / Held: Respondent’s were negligent as the tree falling was reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $3,300.

Contract / Applicant signed a contract for a wedding reception with the Respondent / Contract stated all payments were non-refundable but event date could be moved due to COVID-19 lockdowns / Lockdown restrictions were enforced / Applicant was advised she would need to reschedule the event / Government then announced the COVID-19 Alert system were being replaced with traffic light settings / Applicant tried to vary her contract by way of telephone call / Applicant claimed the Government lockdown clause became void when the traffic light system was introduced / Applicant claimed refund of $3,000.00 deposit / Held: lockdown clause did not become void when the Alert system ended / Only remedy was to re-schedule the event which the Applicant did not wish to do / Tribunal will not undermine otherwise legally enforcable and binding contract solely on the basis that the contract agreed might be unfair to one party / Applicant did not establish claim for deposit refund / Claim dismissed. 

Negligence / Car driven by second Respondent collided with the rear of car driven by first Respondent / First Respondent’s car then veered into shop occupied by Applicant / Considerable damage caused / Applicant’s insurer has met the costs of repairs and now claims those costs from first Respondent, their insurer, and second Respondent / Held: second Respondent fully liable for the damage / Impact from behind might have caused first Respondent to react in confused way and accelerate into shop / Claim against first Respondent dismissed / Second Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,285.20.

Negligence / During a cyclone, Respondents' garden shed blew away and hit the Applicants' vehicle causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,378.20 for vehicle repairs / Held: duty of care for Respondent to prevent consequences they could reasonably foresee would result in harm / Duty was not breached as Respondent had secured the shed in excess of the manufacturer's recommendation / Applicant failed to provide any contrary evidence / Cyclone was considered an Act of God / Respondent could not have anticipated or guarded against circumstances, nor foreseen the damage to the Applicant's vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / School ordered 11 books from the Applicant at a cost of $575.50 / Books were self-published by the Applicant as a limited edition of 100 copies / Applicant sent the books by courier through the Respondent / Books never reached the school / Applicant claimed $931.20 for full print run and the filing fee /  Respondent admitted liability for loss of books but disputed their value / Held: books should be valued at market price /  Market for such books is limited and largely local / Loss of the books meant that the Applicant suffered the loss of full contract price / Respondent ordered to pay $575.50 to the Applicant / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicants made $20,000 payment to Respondents' trust / Applicants claim payment was loan / Applicants claim for repayment of $20,000 / Held: money is a gift as no written record of anything that would make the money a loan, and insufficient other evidence of the money being for the purposes of a loan / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant had a car insurance policy with Respondent / Applicant claimed his car was stolen and lodged a claim / Applicant provided Respondent different versions of events on how the car was stolen / In any event it appeared Applicant lent his car to someone else / Respondent investigated claim / Applicant claimed value of the car with interest / Held: car was given to someone else / Not a “sudden and accidental physical loss” that Applicant insured for / Claim dismissed.

Contract/  Applicant entered into an agreement of sale and purchase of a business with the respondent/ Applicant claimed that proper gas bottles were installed in a zone that was not safe and needed to be moved to be legal/ Applicant claimed $8,742.11 for the cost of relocating the gas bottles / Held: Vendor did not breach its any notice, demand, requisition or outstanding requirement adversely affecting the premises/ Vendor has not breached warranty regarding any works for which a permit or building consent was required by law / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Card charges / Hotel / Applicants were guests at Respondent’s hotel / Respondents charged Applicant’s credit card $200 without notifying them / Respondents claim this was because of damage in the room / Applicants claim there was no damage / Applicants claim the charge was unfair / Held: Respondents have burden of proof to prove the damage and justify the charge to the Applicant’s credit card / Held: Respondents have not discharged burden of proof as their evidence is from over six months later / Held: no legal basis for the Respondents to charge the Applicant’s credit card $200.00 / Respondents ordered to repay the $200 / Claim upheld.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant owns a lot adjacent to the Respondent’s / Applicant emailed a fencing notice to the Respondent proposing a fence to be erected between the two properties / Applicant did not receive a response so built a fence and invoiced the Respondent for half of the cost / The respondent states notice was not correctly served to the legal owner of the land / Applicant claims $661.25 for the erection of the fence and Applicant’s legal costs / Held: Applicant did not serve the fencing notice to the Respondent / Claim dismissed.