Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased candles online from Respondent / Applicant stated candles were smudged and flattened near the bottom and not of the quality she expected / Applicant sought to return the candles and receive compensation of $127.00 / Respondent stood by the quality of the candles saying they were produced in beeswax and were formed within a mold / Respondent said she offered to exchange the candles but the offer was not accepted / Held: candles were of acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Clear to any buyer that that the candles were not hand-carved / No breach of guarantee / No right to refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract law / Applicants engaged Respondent to install concrete pool surround and patio for $34,348.49 / Applicants paid $17,174.25 but dispute outstanding balance of $16,481.02 / Applicants claim alleged work not completed with reasonable care and skill and sought declaration of non-liability for outstanding invoices from Respondent / Respondent sought payment of outstanding invoices / Held: work on pool was completed with reasonable care and skill / Product recommended was appropriate for pool condition and budget but Respondent failed to clearly communicate its likely aesthetic limitations / Referee accepted Applicants were inadequately warned about visual risks of cutting coping edge / No structural defect and cost of a full redo of the pool was disproportionate to loss Applicant’s suffered / Applicants awarded 20% discount for loss of amenity plus prior credit of $602.80 / Applicants ordered to pay Respondent $9,008.52 / Claim accepted in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took a mobile phone to Respondent for repairs and battery replacement, paying $340 for the service / After the repair, the phone had new issues / Applicant returned to Respondent but the problems were not resolved / Phone eventually stopped working, requiring Applicant to purchase a new phone / Applicant claimed $1,500 for unsatisfactory repair, consequential damage and lost income / Held: Respondent failed to carry out repairs with reasonable care and skill / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $590 within 28 days / Claim allowed in part.

Contract law / Applicant had a contract with respondents to provide services at events / Subsequently, respondent began a competitive procurement process for the services / Applicant participated, but was unsuccessful with a new supplier to take over / Applicant claimed the 60-day notice period for termination under the contract was not observed / Applicant sought compensation for lost income for a certain time period / Held: 60-day notice period applied only to termination during the contract term, not to expiry at the end date / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant parked in a car park managed by Respondent / Applicant charged a fee for breaching parking conditions / Signage clearly outlined terms for use of car park / Applicant claimed fee was unreasonable / Applicant sought a refund of the fine paid and associated filing costs / Held: Applicant breached a binding contract that was entered into by both parties on agreed terms when parking for 133 minutes in a 60-minute carparking site / Breach fee was not excessive / Applicant liable for breach fee and not entitled to a refund / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Employment / Respondent enrolled his son at the Applicant school / Respondent signed the enrolment form but did not sign the separate attendance dues agreement / Respondent's son attended the school for four years / Respondent made minimal payments / Respondent claimed he was not contractually obligated to pay the remaining dues due to lack of a signed agreement and uncertainty around the dues amount / Applicant claimed $6,502.94 in unpaid attendance dues / Held: Respondent had entered into a binding contract by signing the enrolment form, which included a clause agreeing to pay attendance dues / Respondent ordered to pay $6,502.94 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant hired vehicle and purchased insurance from Respondent / Applicant drove vehicle into signpost and damaged underside of engine / Respondent claimed policy did not cover engine damage as it came under underbody damage policy exclusion / Applicant disputed this and claimed declaration of non-liability for $4,999 / Held: more likely than not engine damage caused by Applicant / Evidence of oil leakage and large crack to underside of vehicle after collision / Frontal impact not significant enough to cause damage to underbody / Engine damage was underneath body of vehicle so falls within the underbody exclusion / Under DTA if claim for declaration of non-liability in respect of liquidated demand dismissed, Tribunal may make order for Applicant to repay Respondent / Applicant to pay Respondent $5,641.73 for underbody repair costs and other costs related to car hire / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer law / Applicant purchased washing machine from Respondent for $2 / Respondent claimed collection by 10am condition of sale / Applicant did not collect by deadline so Respondent gave machine to third party / Applicant claimed $4,999 for value of machine / Held: no evidence collection deadline was condition of sale / Deadline not communicated to Applicant before or after sale / Respondent breached contract by disposing machine without providing Applicant reasonable opportunity for collection / Insufficient evidence washing machine had higher valuation than purchase price / Respondent to pay Applicant $2 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant and family booked flights with two separate airlines  / First set of tickets from Respondent with international stopovers and second set of tickets with another airline / Respondent initially refused to check them in because Applicant’s passport expired in less than six months / They missed connecting flights and Applicant had to book alternative flights / Applicant claimed Respondent wrongly denied them boarding and sought $30,000 / Held: Respondent acted correctly by denying Applicant to board but incorrectly by not boarding his family / Applicant’s flights with Respondent ended at country which required passports to be valid for minimum six months / Applicant did not meet legal conditions for entry so Respondent not liable for his costs / Respondent failed to act with reasonable skill and care by not boarding family / No issues with family's passports so should have so should have boarded them / Respondent liable to pay replace…

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to complete fencing on property / Applicant disputed labour charges included offsite work (preparation and travel time) / No written agreement only verbal with no witness / Applicant paid full amount less offsite labour / Applicant claimed non-liability for offsite labour comprised of $885 and debt collection fees of $708.17 / Held: Respondent’s recollection where labour charges included preparation and travel preferred / It was a reasonable and acceptable business practise for job that spread over several days / Applicant liable to pay offsite labour charges / Tribunal found not a term of contract that debt collection costs could be charged on overdue accounts / Even if agreed sending debt to collection was inappropriate due to presence of dispute / Applicant not liable for debt collection costs / Applicant to pay Respondent $885 / Claim allowed in part.

Civil / Motor vehicle accident liability / Applicant and Respondent were involved in a collision at a give way intersection / Applicant was in front and claimed to have stopped due to an approaching vehicle / Respondent believed Applicant was accelerating away and began to check traffic / During that time, Applicant allegedly stopped suddenly, leading to Respondent rear-ending Applicants vehicle / Applicant's insurer claimed the costs of repairs / Held: Tribunal found Respondent fully liable for the collision / Even if Applicant had braked suddenly, the rear driver was solely responsible for avoiding a collision / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $8,310.57 / Claim granted.

Contract / Land Transport Act 1988 / Car registered to the Applicant parked in a car park reserved for customers / Respondent issued a parking breach notice to the Applicant / Applicant advised she was not driving at the time the car was parked / Applicant paid the Respondent $10.40 / Applicant claimed she loaned the car but did not give the driver authority to park in a car park / Respondent claimed the Applicant was liable for the actions of the driver as an agency relationship had been formed / Held: accepted that the Applicant was not the driver of the car / Applicant did not give the authority to contract on the owner’s behalf / No agency as allegedly by the Respondent / Applicant not liable for any amount in relation to parking breach notice /  / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract law / Parties were in a relationship / Applicant claimed to have loaned respondent $8,739, asserting it was a loan not a gift / Applicant now claims the loan amount back from respondent / Held: on the evidence, there was an intention by both parties to create a legally binding agreement for repayment / Arrangement was more than a social arrangement; it was a contract for a loan / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,739 by 1 September 2025, claim allowed.