Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant signed up for a diving course with the Respondent / Applicant was unable to complete the course for a variety of reasons / Applicant claimed a refund of $499 course fee from Respondent / Held: Respondent complied with its obligations under its contract with Applicant / Postponements due to illness and weather were predictable and contract remained on foot / Applicant had several opportunities to complete course, but did not do so for his own reasons / Respondent remained willing to provide course to the Applicant / Applicant’s inability to get time off work was not the fault of the Respondent / Respondent not obliged to pay any refund to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant to carry out building work / Applicant provided an estimate and said 'extras' were added as job progressed / Dispute arose about progress, extras and costs towards the end of the job / Applicant advised Respondent they were terminating contract before completion / Respondents paid $50,346.95 and a further $8445.34 had been invoiced and was outstanding / Respondents said they paid a further $20,000.00 to Applicant’s sub-contractors and they paid pay another builder $20,000.00 to finish incomplete job / Applicant claimed $8445.34 for outstanding amount / Held: Applicant failed to prove Respondent was liable for further payment / Absence of evidence about extent of completion on termination, dispute about what constituted extras, absence of agreement and costs for extras / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fraud / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out landscaping work for Respondent / Applicant sent Respondent invoice for $13,801.15 via email / Respondent received another email from Applicant’s email address from a sender representing themselves as Applicant, advising Applicant’s bank account details had changed / Respondent paid $13,801.15 into hacker’s bank account / Parties contacted police and their banks, but money had not been recovered / Applicant claimed cost of invoice from Respondent / Respondent refused to pay invoice again / Held: Applicant should bear the risk for what happened / As a business dealing with the public, Applicant had duty of care to be aware of online fraud and to take precautions / Applicant’s cybersecurity was entirely in their hands and not the customer’s / Businesses are better placed than a consumer to insure and protect themselves against online fraud / Respondent not liable to pay $13,801.15 / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Insurance / Applicant applied to the Respondent (an insurance company) for funds to replace damaged barn on Applicant's property / Respondent declined on the basis that the barn was not covered within insurance policy / Applicant claimed $30,000 / Held: Applicant proved as a matter of interpretation that barn was not outside residential boundary / Respondent proved that barn was built for farming purposes and therefore excluded from cover / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Contract and Consumer Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1991 / Applicant purchased a snack manufactured by Respondent / Embedded in the snack was a date pit / When the Applicant bit on it he suffered breakage to two of his teeth and his partial upper denture / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 in compensation / Held: snack was not of acceptable quality, nor fit for purpose / Reasonable consumer would not have purchased such an item knowing that it contained an object that could cause breakage to teeth or dentures / Applicant should not reasonably have expected to find a date pit in his snack / Respondent ordered to pay for Applicant’s broken molars and broken upper denture / Applicant not entitled to cost of new lower denture, as he did not prove it was required as direct result of date pit’s presence / Respondent ordered to pay $2,488,00 for dental repairs / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a coffee machine for $1,200 / Machine purchased on the basis that the seller would repair a fault / Instead of repairing fault, Respondent returned the machine to the store and received a $3,500 refund / Respondent then advised Applicant that sale was off / Applicant claimed $3,500 for the value of a new machine / Held: contract formed between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent breached conditional contract by returning machine in favour of a $3,500 refund, rather than completing contract with Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $500.00 / Amount assessed to acknowledge Applicant had lost the opportunity to purchase particular machine from the seller at a favourable price / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 / Applicant leased a car from First Respondent for three years, with weekly payments and four weeks paid in advance / Lease included an option to buy the car for $3,000 when contract ended / Applicant ceased payments two years later after Second Respondent (the company’s director) failed to provide a statement of account / Year later, Applicant received a statement of account of $7,233 and an email threatening repossession / Applicant paid $2,000 but car was repossessed / After paying extra $5,233, First Respondent still refused to release car / Applicant claimed $30,000 for wrongful repossession / First Respondent counterclaimed $135.30 in default interest / Held: Second Respondent not personally liable / First Respondent having failed to make an initial disclosure, was barred from repossessing car / Applicant overpaid by $570 / First Respondent ordered to pay $13,657.79 for the car’s value, interest, and overpayment refund / C…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contacted Respondent about buying her car / Parties negotiated price of $5,250.00 / Applicant observed unusual behaviour in the car ten days after purchase / Applicant got a mechanic’s report and contacted Respondent about issues identified / Respondent refused to refund Applicant or contribute to repair costs / Respondent had stated car had been “well looked after mechanically” / Applicant claimed $4,903.45 in damages, comprising $4,250.00 for loss in value, $287.50 for diagnosis, $57.95 for a fee to return parts purchased, $218.00 for other parts purchased, and $90.00 filing fee / Held: representation that car had been well looked after mechanically influenced Applicant’s decision to go ahead with the purchase without any pre-purchase inspection / Applicant was induced by the misrepresentation to enter into the contract / Applicant entitled to recover half cost of engine replacement and diagnosis, $2,022.70 / Claim allowed i…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicants entered into agreement with Respondents to occupy caravan site at Respondents' holiday camp / Applicants informed Respondents their intent to sell caravan / Respondents gave notice they would not be offering a licence beyond termination date / Applicant claimed losses incurred in renovations and loss due to sale of caravan off-site / Held: Applicants unable to prove misrepresentation on licence agreement / No remedy available to Applicants / No sufficient evidence of misleading, deceptive or unconscionable conduct / Claim dismissed.

Building / Building Act 2004 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicant purchased property from Respondent in 2016 / In 2024, Applicant said there was a leak in one of the bedroom ceilings caused by a defect in the roofing / Applicant claimed there had been a breach of warranties as the roof had been laid incorrectly / Applicant claimed $3,029.00 to remedy roof / Held: most likely roof was not laid with reasonable care and skill / Building expert confirmed roof had been installed incorrectly, and that would have caused durability issues and may have been the cause of the leak / Claim was filed outside six year primary period in Limitation Act / Claim was permitted as Applicant was not aware of roofing issue until 2024, and filed claim very promptly after becoming aware of problem / Reasonable costs to repair roof was $3,029.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3,029.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant booked 59 return international flights with the Respondent / Each time the Applicant booked a flight he would cancel the paid part of the fare, obtaining a credit and retaining the free outgoing booking, and then book another return flight under the same terms / Applicant did not take any of the outgoing flights / For each outgoing flight there was a charge for passenger movement / Respondent airline paid that charge in each case / Applicant did not take any of the flights and any passenger movement charge paid would have been refunded to the Respondent since the Applicant did not depart at any point/ Respondent refused to pay passenger movement claims / Applicant filed a claim for the payment of 59 passenger movement charges, totalling $4,965.00 / Held: no passenger movement charges were collected from Applicant for flights / No administration fee was refundable as none was paid to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant flatted with Respondents, and disputed sums owing after leaving / Held: $50.00 deducted from Applicant’s bond for cleaning costs could not be established / Small amount of cost, time and inconvenience involved to clean walls and vacuum justified award of $20.00, requiring refund of $30.00 / Applicant had overpaid rent by 4 days, requiring refund of $120.00 / Applicant owed $55.11 in flat expenses / Damage to walls more likely than not caused by Applicant, and remained minor liability in Respondents’ tenancy / Overall justice of matter left balance otherwise due back to Applicant of $94.89 as fair offset to any future repair work / Neither party required to pay the other any sum / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Applicant bought a surfboard from Respondent for $2,299.00 / Applicant used the board in small waves on three occasions / On the third occasion the board was damaged / Applicant said the board was not of acceptable quality / Applicant had the board inspected by a board repairer / Applicant sought an order that the Respondent was liable to pay him $2,299.00 / Held: Respondent said it would like to have the board inspected by its own repairers / Applicant agreed to drop the board to the Respondent once he had obtained any quotes and reports from board repairers / Claim was adjourned to enable both parties to have the board inspected by their selected experts, and provide reports to the Tribunal / Claim adjourned.