Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Child Support Act 1991 / Parties entered agreement that each would reimburse the other for any child support payments received through the IRD or any other agency / Applicant claimed reimbursement of $5,932.00 in child support payments and $5,677.35 disability allowance payments he claimed were covered by the same agreement / Respondent challenged Tribunal’s jurisdiction to hear claim / Held: Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear claim as this type of agreement was not covered by Child Support Act / Respondent confirmed she had received payments totalling $4,846.80 which she had not reimbursed / Respondent had not received other claimed child support payments / Unconscionable to enforce term of agreement that would require either party to reimburse money they had not actually received / Respondent to reimburse payments to Applicant once received / No reimbursement due for disability allowance payments / Respondent ordered to pay $4,846.80 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased generator for campervan from Respondent / Shop owner placed generator into van in same position old generator was / Applicant discovered fire in campervan after driving on windy road / Generator had tipped over causing petrol to spill and ignite / Fire caused damage to van and Applicant's possessions / Applicant knew from previous generator that generator needed to remain upright / Applicant alleges breach of Consumer Guarantees Act by Respondent for not informing Applicant of danger fuel could escape if generator tipped over / Applicant claims insurance excess paid and compensation for lost possessions / Held: no breach of Consumer Guarantees Act as guarantees in Act do not impart obligation on supplier to inform consumer that petrol could escape if generator tipped over / Respondent also not liable only because shop manager placed generator in van as nothing places responsibility on supplier of goods once consumer tran…

Contract / Insurance / Applicant owned a ute and was involved in an accident / Respondent covered cost of repairs except for the excess / Applicant noticed engine and transmission issues after ute was repaired which were not present before the accident / Respondent refused Applicant’s claim to remediate the mechanical failures, asserting the failures pre-existed the accident / Applicant claimed $17,000 as contribution to the repairs he had to pay for / Held: ute most likely did not have pre-existing mechanical failure / Mechanical and transmission failures were most likely caused by the accident / Ute was insured for $17,000 / Maximum Applicant was entitled to was $17,000 less excess and repairs already paid, being $10,406.99 / Respondent ordered to pay $10,406.99 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Limitation Act 2010 / Applicants hired the Respondent photographer for their wedding in 2017 / Applicants requested a fusion video to be added to their photography package for an extra $800 / To obtain the fusion video, the Applicants had to select 100 photographs and the Respondent would use a particular software to create the video / Applicants contacted the Respondent in 2024 to obtain the video / Respondent advised she no longer had the necessary software / Respondent offered three different options but these were not accepted by the Applicants / Applicants sought a refund of $800 / Held: reasonable expectation for the photo selection to take a few months’ time or for Applicants to contact Respondent to extend the timeline / Applicants’ delay of six and a half years was unreasonable / Applicants were unable to justify delay / Respondent had offered three alternative solutions which were not accepted by the Applicants / Claim dismiss…

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Consumer Law Act / Applicant's son purchased car from Respondent on basis that Respondent said it was in "mint" condition / Significant issues with car identified after purchase requiring repairs which Applicant paid for / Applicant claims compensation because the car had been described as being 'mint' / Held - no misrepresentation as no statement was made which meets requirements of actionable misrepresentation under s 35 Contract and Commercial Law Act / Respondent's "mint" statement referred to work Respondent did on car, not condition of car in general / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Applicant and Respondent were involved in vehicle accident / Respondent on Learner's Licence and drove without supervision / Applicant claimed $13,998.98 compensation for vehicle damages / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care because he failed to take reasonable care when driving and to make sure the way was clear whilst performing a u-turn / Respondent was negligent and therefore liable / Reasonable costs include estimated market value of Applicant's vehicle, towing fees and wreck value / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $12,368.98 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant claimed she accepted a quote to redo her bathroom from Respondent who represented himself as a builder / Agreed price was $38,180.00, excluding the supply of tiles / Applicant said she paid a deposit of $11,454.00 / Applicant said that she and Respondent visited the supplier where she selected tiles / Respondent advised that he had an account and could receive the trade rate / Applicant paid the Respondent $2,479.67 for tiles and delivery / Applicant made an enquiry about the delivery time but received no response / Applicant then contacted the supplier who advised that no order had been made and the Respondent did not have a trade account / Applicant emailed Respondent for a refund / Months later the Respondent apologised for his actions / Applicant claimed $13,933.67, comprising a deposit of $11,454.00 and $2,479.67 for the tiles / Held: Respondent breached the contract by failing to perform his obligations / Applicant received …

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent share a boundary fence / Builder's report showed fence needed repair or replacement in near future / Parties discussed repairs and Second Respondent agreed to repairs or replacement / Second Respondent informed Applicants they could not contribute financially / Applicants claimed $1000 as contribution to fence repairs / Held: no Fencing Act notice was served by Applicants on Respondents prior to commencing work and no evidence that fence required such immediate work as to forgo notice / Fencing Act applied as no agreement between parties on costs / Applicants had accepted Respondent only agreed to fence being repaired or replaced / Applicants’ notice was served after work completed / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant contracted to move cabins purchased by respondent / Respondents refused to pay invoice because cabins were damaged / Respondent said Applicant damaged cabins while moving them / Applicant claimed for payment of its invoice / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of costs to repair cabins / Held - Respondents liable to pay invoice as Applicant had provided services they were contracted to / Respondents unable to prove Applicants had damaged cabins / Claim successful / Counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant was engaged to re-roof Respondent's house / Applicant quoted $40,607.78 for the re-roofing / Respondent paid $26,060.78 / Applicant claimed $14,547 as well as $5,708.76 for scaffolding costs, $641.66 for interest and $3,450 for debt collection fees / Respondent claimed work was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / Respondent stated there were multiple dented roofing sheets, jagged rough cuts, gulley too wide, pipe broken and internal damage to the ceiling / Held: Applicant confirmed they had remedied the failures / Applicant's claim for scaffolding, debt collection and interest was not accepted / $14,547 remained outstanding by Respondent, however $6,250.00 was deducted for damage caused during re-roofing / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,297 / Claim granted in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle / Applicant claimed refund of price paid and compensation for parts and labour / Held: Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle to Applicant / Vehicle had a body swap and it is not possible to achieve certification / Vehicle not roadworthy / Applicant entitled to damages as a result of misrepresentation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,500 / Applicant ordered to return vehicle to Respondent upon receipt of reimbursement / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Respondent was driving when he appeared to lose control of his vehicle and crashed into the Applicant’s parked van / Impact caused significant damage to van and its contents / Applicant claimed $30,000, being $25,000 for the van, $2360.12 for tools damaged in the accident, and the balance for stress and inconvenience / Respondent accepted responsibility for accident, however his insurer submitted he was not liable as there was no negligence / Respondent stated he believed he had a seizure because he had no memory of the accident / Respondent had recently stopped taking all medication prescribed for his medical condition and embarked on an extreme weight loss programme without medical advice / Held: a prudent person would have sought advice before ceasing medication and embarking on an extreme weight loss programme, and failing to do so was a breach of a duty of care / Breach of the duty of care led to the accident / Respondent was negligent / Respondent liable to pay vehic…

Land Transport law / Accident Compensation law / Accident Compensation Act 2001 / The applicant claimed damages following a motor vehicle collision caused by the Respondent / The applicant claims $60 for medical expenses incurred after the accident and $27,817 for the cost of renting a hire vehicle for approximately 180 days / Held: The applicant’s claim for medical expenses was barred by the Accident Compensation Act 2001 / The applicant’s claim for rental vehicle expenses was not supported by sufficient evidence and was deemed unreasonable / Claim dismissed.