Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Tort / Nuisance / Applicant and Respondent own neighbouring properties / Applicant claimed Respondent's property were used in prostitution and selling drugs / Applicant experienced harassment and threatening behaviour / Applicant claimed costs of abating nuisance caused by tenants / Held: First and Second Respondent implicitly authorised creation or continuance of nuisance by tenants / Cross-lease relationship between two properties heightened landlord's responsibilities / First and Second Respondent responsible for ongoing nuisance created by tenant / Third Respondent as property manager does not have the same responsibility / First and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,415.74 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Banking / Applicant provided mortgage broking services to Respondent / Respondent did not proceed with Applicant's service / Respondent did not pay Applicant's invoice / Applicant claimed payment for services / Held: not proven that Applicant promised or guaranteed Respondent would obtain home loan offer at 80% LVR or higher / Applicant contractually entitled to charge Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,600.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent / Applicant discovered many faults with the vehicle / Respondent carried out some repair work / Applicant claims Respondent caused other problems during this repair work / Applicant claims WOF was fraudulent and vehicle's condition was misrepresented / Held: Respondent not at fault and had offered to refund the purchase price / Applicant took risk of buying vehicles without a prepurchase check / Claim dismissed.

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant purchased two crystal lead batteries from Respondent for solar power / Batteries collapsed within a year and were replaced by applicant / Respondent told Applicant told adding additional batteries to solar system may cause battery deterioration / Applicant claimed for cost of replacement batteries sold to her by respondent on basis they were not fit for purpose / Held - No evidence that system was not fit for purpose and Applicant unable to show that respondents had breached guarantees in Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent contracted by Applicant to provide property management services / Applicant terminated contract and claimed costs for broken or missing items, loss of revenue, rubbish removal, sewage pump repairs, refund of cleaning fee relating to Applicant's own stay at property, plus partial refund of property management fees paid / Held: no contractual liability or binding agreement making Respondent liable for missing or damaged items / Contractual exclusion clauses apply to loss of Applicant's revenue / Insufficient evidence to show breach by Respondents / No evidence or information provided as basis for Respondent's liability to pay or contribute to sewage pump repairs / Insufficient evidence for Tribunal to determine claims relating to rubbish removal or cleaning fee / No basis for refund of property management fees given other claims failed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a vehicle from Respondent / Applicant encountered gearbox issues after purchase / Applicant and Respondent were unable to reach agreement / Applicant sought $6,239.20 for diagnostic testing and replacement gearbox / Held: Applicant was induced to enter contract by misrepresentations made by Respondent about the gear box / Respondent to pay Applicant $6,239.20 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent engaged the Applicants to move furniture / Respondent’s puppy was killed in the course of the move / Respondent accepted Applicants’ work was done but considered that they were responsible for the death of his puppy / Applicants claimed $542.00 for cost of their labour and related costs / Held: Applicants were obliged to carry out their work with reasonable care so as not to cause damage to Respondent’s property / Applicants did not fail to use reasonable care / Respondent had obligation to maintain control of the puppy / Respondent took the risk of his puppy suffering injury by allowing her to run loose whilst the Applicants were moving heavy objects / Respondent did not warn Applicants that the puppy was running loose, particularly as they had previously observed the puppy being restrained / Applicants’ actions resulted in the puppy’s death, but their actions could not be regarded as negligent conduct / Respondent should have confined his puppy while heavy obj…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant acquired Respondent's services to powder coat her door / Door was damaged when it was baked in oven causing internal plastic and rubber to melt / Applicant claimed compensation for damages / Held: First Respondent breached Consumer Guarantees Act / First Respondent could and should have been more careful when agreeing to carry out work by asking Applicant more questions about door, recording discussions in writing, and considering the decision more seriously / Value of damaged door less than amount claimed / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim against Second and Third Respondents dismissed / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Protection of Personal and Property Rights Act 1988 / Respondent’s legal services were engaged for the execution of an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPA) for Applicant’s father / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide satisfactory advice to him about the EPA, resulting in Applicant’s expenditure from his father’s estate that the Family Court ordered him to refund / Applicant claimed $30,000 loss arising from Respondent’s incorrect advice / Held: Respondent failed to provide satisfactory EPA services, as EPA instrument was ineffective / Failure demonstrated a lack of reasonable care and skill and failure to provide services fit for purpose / However, money ordered to be repaid by the Family Court was not a consequential loss arising from Respondent’s inadequate EPA process, but a consequence of Applicant’s decision to spend his father’s money without a legal basis for doing so / That decision pre-dated the EPA instrument executed by Re…

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a vehicle in 2013 / In 2023, vehicle required around $10,700.00 of transmission work / Repairer informed Applicants transmission failed because all four tyres had not been changed at the same time during life of the vehicle, placing strain on the transmission system / Applicants were unaware of necessity of changing all four tyres at once / Applicants sought compensation from manufacturer (First Respondent) and tyre company (Second Respondent) / Held: First Respondent and its agent failed to inform Applicants about danger to the transmission from incorrect tyre replacement / First Respondent chose to remain quiet about this issue / This conduct breached the FTA requirement not to mislead the public as to characteristics and suitability for purpose of the vehicle / Insufficient evidence that Second Respondent failed to carry out tyre servicing with reasonable care and skill / Applicants enti…

Tort / Negligence / Vicarious liability / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicular accident / Applicant riding motorcycle / Respondent driving work van / Applicant filed claim against the Respondent, Respondent's employer and insurer / Applicant claimed damages for loss of his motorbike, jacket, gloves, helmet, and stress and inconvenience / Held: Respondent breached duty of care to Applicant when he failed to ascertain way was clear before turning to another road / Defence of frolic and detour applies / Respondent's employer not vicariously liable / Respondent driving under suspended licence / Applicant entitled to damages / Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,730 / Claim against First Respondent and insurer dismissed / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased phone from Respondent / Device was advertised as being water resistant to a maximum of 1.5m for up to 30 minutes / Device was accidentally submerged in water for less than a second to a depth of about 10cm / Device stopped working / Applicant reported failure to Respondent / Device was sent to a repairer for assessment / Respondent advised device had suffered liquid ingress which was not covered by warranty / Respondent claimed device had been misused / Applicant claimed refund of $1,095.00 / Held: apparent from repairer’s report the device failed due to a manufacturer’s fault / All reference to the fault were removed from the report Respondent submitted to the Tribunal / Clear evidence that device was not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to refund / Respondent ordered to pay $1,095.00 / Claim allowed.