Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondent had dental work done by Applicant / Cost of work was $65,000 / Respondent paid deposit and agreed to pay off remainder in instalments / Applicant filed $38,000 claim against Respondent / Applicant went into liquidation / Liquidator claimed $30,000 from Respondent / Respondent claimed debt was forgiven / Held: Applicant was unable to prove that the debt was not forgiven / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to inspect a collapsed drain using specialist camera equipment / During inspection, an employee of the Respondent cut through the collapsed drainpipe, severing the camera cord / Applicant sought compensation for net loss of $3,401.83 / Held: both parties failed to take reasonable care / Respondent, as head contractor had a greater duty of care and failed to act with reasonable care / Applicant’s representative also contributed to damage by not reminding Respondent’s workers about the camera in the drain / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,211.19 / Applicant’s insurer ordered to pay the first $350 of the sum to Applicants / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Respondent and Applicant had a vehicle collision as Applicant turned out of a driveway / Respondent accepted liability, but disputed amount claimed by the Applicant and their insurer / Applicant's vehicle was assessed as uneconomic to repair / Applicant's insurer obtained a registered valuation for the vehicle of $6000.00 / Applicant and their insurer claimed $6196.20 / Respondent obtained three vehicle valuations for Applicants car, values varied between $1849.00 and $2750.00 / Applicant admitted he purchased the vehicle for $3500 in 2020 / Held: car's purchase price adequately reflected market value / Car value would have reduced via depreciation in subsequent three years / Pre-accident value of Applicant's vehicle was therefore $3000.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3196.20 (being $2946.20 insured loss and $250.00 uninsured loss) to Applicant's insurer / Claim granted in part.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased bidet in 2021 / Bidet malfunctioned in 2024 / Applicant claimed $787.95 for removal, repair, and reinstallation / Applicant claimed Respondent told her that the warranty had expired and repairs were not covered / Respondents stated they had responded to an initial enquiry from a third party and gave information about the estimated costs of repair / Applicant then obtained services of her own choice from the installer / Respondent denied they should be liable for the costs / Respondent did not accept the CGA applied to the bidet repairs given the time passed since it was purchased and installed / Held: manufacturer’s estimate of the bidet’s life expectancy was approximately 10-12 years / Faulty part of the bidet was not of acceptable quality as only lasted three years / CGA entitled a consumer to have the failure remedied / CGA also permitted additional compensation to be paid where other loss or damage to the consu…

Contract /  Applicant hired a car from Respondent / Applicant paid the 20 day rental fee of $1481.80 in advance / Within five minutes of driving the vehicle, Applicant had an accident, colliding with parked cars / Applicant claimed the vehicle had mechanical defects and that she was unable to control it / Respondent declined to give Applicant a replacement vehicle / Applicant claimed for a refund of the amount paid for rental in advance / Held:  no evidence of a mechanical defect / Accident was more likely due to driver error / Reasonable for the Respondent not to provide a replacement vehicle in the circumstances / Hire agreement silent on whether fees paid in advance should be refunded when no replacement car in provided / Contract did not provide for the retention of pre-paid rental when the contract was cancelled /  Applicant entitled to a refund of 19 days hireage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,293.71 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligence / Applicant pulled up and damaged Respondent's fibre cable while servicing a client's property / Respondent claimed repair costs from Applicant / Applicant claimed declaration for non-liability in tort / Held: Respondent did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that Applicant breached its duty of care / No evidence as to whether there was any variation in expected or reasonable practice depending on excavation or groundwork being carried out / Applicant advised to adopt more cautious approach in future / Counterclaim dismissed / Claim struck out.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent for $6,300 / Subsequently, Applicant experienced mechanical issues, including stalling and engine failure / Mechanics found blockages and metal deposits in the oil / Respondent claimed the car had run well during his ownership and he was unaware of any defects / Applicant claimed for refund of $6,300, repair costs of $572.98, cost of new engine at $4,933.50 and Disputes Tribunal filing fee of $180.00 / Respondent counterclaimed for $964.43 / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent the state of the car / Applicant’s claim dismissed as she took a risk in purchasing an old car with a high odometer reading / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed as the costs sought were not allowed under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants own property neighbouring Respondent / Respondent's father told Appellants of concerns about condition of shared boundary fence / Appellants discussed fence repairs and division of costs / Applicants claimed $4999 from Respondent as contribution to fence costs / Held: no enforceable agreement about fence costs was created / Respondent not liable to pay / Contractual elements of agreement and certainity in respect of Respondent's liability for fence costs not present between parties / Necessary notice procedure not followed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant knew a lot about particular brand of car and purchased one from Respondent via online selling platform / Respondent's advertisement said car had been imported as a write off then repaired and resold / Parties arranged for car to be inspected prior to purchase by company specialising in the particular car brand  / Applicant then organised for same company to complete WOF check and service without consulting Respondent / Applicant informed Respondent car needed some repairs and asked for lower price / Respondent refused lower price as advertisement clearly stated the price would not be lowered due to WOF issues / Respondent then informed Applicant sale was "private as is sale" / Applicant prepared sale and purchase agreement for full price and signed and sent it to Respondent / Respondent added comment on agreement referring to 'as is' nature of sale / Applicant did not initial words added by Respondent but paid Respondent full purchase price / Car broke down complet…

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a campervan from Respondent for $30,000.00 / Applicant subsequently discovered a severe rust issue causing leaks, which was uneconomic to repair / Applicant sought a full reimbursement of purchase price / Held:  advertisement did not misrepresent the vehicle's condition / During the Applicant's inspection of the vehicle prior to the sale, it was evident that repairs were needed, including addressing rust / Onus was on the Applicant to make all necessary checks before he agreed to purchase / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased an inflatable dinghy from the Respondent / Purchase was made via the Respondent’s website / Dinghy was advertised with a photo showing a dinghy with rowlocks / Dinghy was delivered but was not used straight-away due to weather issues / When the dinghy was first used it was discovered it had straps not rowlocks / Straps were not useable as rowlocks / Applicants contacted Respondent and were offered a $200 refund / Applicants sought a refund for the dinghy as they said without rowlocks it is not fit for purpose / Applicants also claimed that the dingy was sold to them under a mis-statement / Held: photo from the Respondent’s website clearly showed rowlocks which were not present on the purchased dinghy / Difference between the dinghy as depicted and the dinghy as delivered, was  a significance deviation from the description represented by the website photo / Respondent breached the guarantee under the legislation / Accept…

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicants purchased a front bumper bulbar and underbody armour from Respondent / Bullbar did not fit their vehicle, but the underbody armour did / Applicants attempted to sell the bulbar but were unsuccessful / Applicants claimed a refund of the $3,000 purchase price for the bulbar and mileage costs for travel to collect it / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent the product under because Applicants had not explicitly stated the year of their vehicle prior to purchase / However, Respondent’s omission that bulbar was only suitable for post-2015 vehicles was misleading / Applicants were misled and entitled to a remedy / Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $3,000 by 22 November 2024 / Applicants required to return the bulbar to Respondents at their own costs / Claim allowed.  

Contract / Tort / Negligence / Applicant engaged by Respondent to house or pet sit / Applicant used Respondent's vehicle with permission / Vehicle had issues while driving / Applicant advised not to drive vehicle / Applicant claimed reimbursement for towing fees / Held: Respondent did not advise Applicant vehicle was 6 months overdue for service and was being monitored for mechanical faults / Applicant not negligent and not liable for replacement engine / Applicant entitled to 50% reimbursement for towing expense / Applicant not entitled to pet care services payment as contract was for unpaid house and pet care services / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.