Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Insurance / Damages / Respondent accidentally drove through Applicant's fence and collided with rear bumper of Applicant's vehicle / Respondent dissuaded Applicant from making an insurance claim and offered to pay repairs / Applicant unhappy with standard of repair / Applicant claimed $2,498.36 insurance claim for further repair / Held: Respondent liable for collision / Repairs were of poor quality and did not restore Applicant's vehicle to its original state / Cost claim proven / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's Insurer $2,498.36 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent and paid $9,000 / Vehicle experienced failures within first week of use and is now essentially worthless / Applicant claimed misrepresentation or mistake / Held: where the seller is not a person "in trade", the consumer protection provided by the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, Fair Trading Act 1986 and the Motor Vehicle Sales Act 2003 does not apply / Head gasket failures are almost always the end consequence of a gradual process / No evidence of any symptoms of engine fault up to the point of sale / No misrepresentation or mistake / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Construction / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant awarded sub-contract for electrical work by Respondent for a new build construction / Applicant completed some work outside contract / Respondent requested for further breakdown of variation in contract / Applicant informed contract had been cancelled / Applicant claimed $11,477.12 for lost profit, time spent pricing and claim related costs / Held: oral recollections were the only available evidence / Respondent unable to prove it is more likely than not that Applicant refused to provide further information / Respondent repudiated contract when it informed Applicant work was being awarded to another supplier / No evidence to support costs claimed by Applicant / Applicant awarded 30% of costs claimed / Cost related to tribunals claim not awarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,823.30 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant installed alarm system at Respondent's bar / Respondent refused to pay Applicant's invoice claiming installation was not authorised / Applicant claimed $262.50 payment for invoice / Held: Applicant were properly engaged by Respondent to investigate why alarm had not been triggered during burglary / Applicant unable to prove it was more likely than not authorised to do extra work to relocate and install a new sensor / Applicant entitled to be paid for investigating the sensor / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $86.25 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant contracted by Respondent to provide educational assessment services / Applicant alleged Respondent wrongly terminated her services / Applicant received 30-day termination notice but before final date, Applicant was locked out of the system and lost her allocated students / Applicant claimed $21,943.76 as compensation for loss of income, legal and application fees / Held: Respondent breached 30-day termination provision of contract / Practically terminated Applicant’s services immediately as removed her allocated students and locked her out of system / Applicant had reasonable expectation that she would complete the already allocated work / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,600 / Claim allowed in part.

Tort / Negligence / Applicant engaged First Respondent to paint roof, fascia and garage door of her home / Respondent also supplied and installed a scaffold working platform and edge protection for painters / Applicant noticed dents on roof / Applicant's insurer paid $56,796.22 to remove and replace roof / Applicant claimed $30,000 as contribution towards remedial costs / Held: First and Third Respondent caused damage to roof / Second and Fourth Respondents (insurers) each ordered to pay Applicant $15,000 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving along the road when his vehicle was damaged by material / Applicant claimed material came off one of the Respondent’s truck that was travelling in the opposite direction / Applicant’s insurer accepted the claim / Applicant said repairs would cost around $9,000.00 / Vehicle was not repaired as the Applicant refused to pay the $750.00 excess / Applicant sought $750.00 from Respondent / Held: Applicant was unable to prove the material came from the Respondent’s truck / Uncertainty about where the Applicant’s car was when it was damaged / Uncertainty about whether the Respondent’s car was in the vicinity of the Applicant’s car when it was damaged / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicants' and Respondent’s vehicles were involved in collision / Applicants and their insurer claimed Respondent failed to give way when exiting driveway / Respondent claimed he had come to complete stop and did not see Applicants’ car approaching because they were speeding / Applicants and their insurer claimed $15,240.23 in costs / Respondent counter-claimed $7,534.90 in costs / Held: primary liability in negligence fell on Respondent for his failure to give way to vehicle on the road / Based on physical damage on vehicle, more likely that Respondent was still reversing when collision occurred / No contributory negligence by Applicants / Respondent unable to prove Applicants speeding / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants' Insurer $15,240.23 / Counterclaim dismissed / Claim allowed.

Vehicle collision / Applicant was travelling along the flush medium and wanted to make right-hand turn / Respondent was also travelling along flush medium / Applicant and Respondent’s vehicles collided / Respondent claims Applicant is liable for collision as they entered the medium too early / Applicant and Applicant’s insurer’s claim damages / Held: Driver can only drive into the flush medium to wait to move into a gap in the traffic to turn right /  Flush mediums not to be used as overtaking lanes / Respondent was liable for the collision / Claim accepted / Respondent to pay $5290.71 to Applicant’s insurer. 

Contract / Property / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased Respondent’s property / Applicant believed wardrobe was fixture of property / Respondent stated dishwasher was not working but would be replaced / Respondent did not note the kind of dishwasher / Sales brochure stated house came with garage door remote controls / Applicant only received one remote control / Applicant believed curtains were included in purchase of property / Held: Applicant entitled to wardrobe or $2000 / Applicant entitled to payment of a new dishwasher / Applicant received single remote control he was contractually obligated to / Applicant to receive payment for office curtains / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,300 and return wardrobe or payment of $2000 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993  / Applicant purchased greenstone from the Respondent online / Applicant said greenstone had micro-fractures which were not visible in the listing photos / Applicant sought to return the greenstone with a refund / Held: Respondent found to be in trade / Insufficient evidence to find greenstone did not comply with the guarantee of acceptable quality / Greenstone was fit for the common purpose of carving / Imperfections such as micro-fractures were inherent with natural resources / Greenstone met the guarantee of acceptable quality as it for fit for common purposes / Not established that that the photos in the listing were a misrepresentation / No breach found / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant took vehicles to Respondent for servicing / Applicant claimed Respondent did not complete work to an appropriate standard / Applicant claimed $15,000 in damages / Held: work on exhaust of vehicle 1 has not been completed with reasonable care and skill as exhaust bolts were missing or were loose / Insufficient evidence overall to show all services for vehicle 1 were not of acceptable quality / Insufficient evidence to support finding that Respondent breached CGA regarding work carried out on vehicle 2 / Respondent liable to pay to have missing bolt replaced and other bolts tightened / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $164.68 / Claim dismissed in most part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased a robot vacuum cleaner from Respondent for $389 in 2019 / Applicant claimed that by 2025, the vacuum was no longer usable / Applicant claimed he was entitled to cancel the sale and obtain damages equal to the cost of purchasing a new comparable model as it was not durable nor free from minor defect / Respondent admitted the sale and accepted the vacuum had failed / Respondent claimed vacuum had worked for a reasonable time given date of sale and type of vacuum / Respondent admitted it was unable to provide parts for the model given its age / Applicant sought compensation of $389 / Held: vacuum was five and a half years old / Vacuum was at the lower end of the market / Robot cleaners have a hard life and can be used often / Reasonable consumer would not expect five and a half years of continuous use at that price point / Respondent did not breach the CGA / Claim dismissed.