Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant was cycling when he hit the opening driver’s door of Respondent’s parked car / Applicant and his insurer claimed $2239.20 for a replacement bike / Respondent alleged it was not his fault and that the Applicant should have left enough space so that he didn’t hit his car door / Respondent counterclaimed $1880.83 / Held: Respondent breached his duty of care to not cause a hazard by opening the door of his vehicle / It would be prudent for Applicant to take account of safe riding guides, but they were not legally binding / Applicant was only required to ride at a certain speed below the speed limit and to be able to stop if a pedestrian crossed the crossing / No evidence Applicant was breaching speed limit / Applicant did not contribute to or cause the collision / Respondent was at fault for collision / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Tort / Trespass / Applicants purchased property with sign advertising business associated with Respondent / Respondent's employees cut sign down / Sign was on Applicants land and Applicants' had intended their own use of sign / Respondents believed sign was on their land and was their sign / Applicants claimed damages for trespass / Held: the sign belonged to Applicants and Respondents committed trespass on the Applicants' land and on sign by negligently and wrongfully interfering with it without Applicant's permission / Applicants would receive betterment by receiving a new replacement sign / Respondent ordered to pay $10,761.14 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Respondents issued Applicant with a parking infringement notice and fine / Notice and fine were waived but Applicant alleges respondent's appeal system is unsatisfactory / Applicant claims costs for the time and inconvenience of having to deal with the infringement and appeal system / Held - Respondents provided services with reasonable care and skill / Applicant's evidence was also insufficient to show bad faith by respondents / No basis for award of compensation / Claim dismissed.

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Wellington.pdf

Disputes-Tribunal-Advertisement-Invercargill

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017/ Applicant purchased a camera system from the Respondent online for $499/ System was misdescribed by the Respondent as a more expensive NVR system with cabling / Applicant was also referred to another listing for a more expensive NVR system as “the same system” and the photos included were for an NVR system with cabling / Applicant was looking to buy a cabled NVR system / Applicant received a system that was not a cabled system / Held: ambiguous and misleading wording and photos, while perhaps inadvertent by the Respondent, amounted to a breach of the implied condition / System received by Applicant was less expensive than the one purchased / Appropriate damages were equivalent to the purchase price / Respondent ordered to pay $499 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant purchased travel insurance from Respondent / Applicant lost hearing aid on overseas trip / Applicant's claim for replacement value of hearing aid was initially declined although later accepted for amount lower than Applicant claimed / Applicant accepted policy document limits hearing aid claim amount / Applicant asked Tribunal to decide if Respondent should make further payment as he had relied on table earlier in policy document that does not indicate limit / Held: threshold not reached to show it is more than likely justice of case warrants intervention under Disputes Tribunal Act / Applicant bears consequences of not taking more time to have policy explained or how cover and limits applied / Claim dismissed.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     …

Contract / Debt / Interest / Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicant loaned Respondent $40,000 / Dispute as to when and how loan was due to be repaid / Applicant claimed repayment of debt, interest and costs / Held: loan agreed to be repaid within two months / No agreement that interest would be charged / No agreement Respondent would be responsible for any costs incurred by Applicant / Respondent failed to comply with original repayment terms / No agreed variation reached regarding interest and costs / Applicant entitled to interest under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Respondent liable to repay Applicant's costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,290.33 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to move her household goods for $1,710.00 / On the day of the move, a dispute arose regarding the manner in which the Applicant’s goods were handled / Police attempted to mediate the situation, and it was suggested that the Applicant pay only half of the contract price as a settlement / Respondent subsequently invoiced the Applicant for $850.00, which the Applicant paid / Applicant sought $18,642.00 from the Respondent for damages caused to the goods / Held: Respondent complied with the requirements set out in the Act / Claim was threfore statutorily barred / Applicant failed to prove her claim / Matter was settled with accepted discount / Substantive evidence was not obtained until months after the removal / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car advertised for sale online at a car yard operated by Respondent / Second Respondent showed car to Applicant but car advertised under Respondent's name / Second Respondent believed sale was private sale as they owned car / Broken engine mount identified 2 weeks after purchase and faulty transmission identified 6 weeks later / Respondent offered to look at car but Applicant had transmission replaced by another mechanic / Applicant claimed $6106.21 for mechanic, towing and replacement transmission / Held: Sale was represented to Applicant as being a sale by Respondent and so was not private sale / Car not of acceptable quality as cost and nature of repairs required were more significant than reasonable consumer would expect within 8 weeks of purchase / Failure was of substantial character as repairs cost two-thirds of purchase price / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable and were reasonably foreseeable losses from…

Contract / Building / Respondents contracted Applicant to build to two houses on Respondent's property / Disagreements at completion of building led to settlement agreement which required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant to settle all claims / Respondents refused to pay agreed sum / Applicant claimed $17,000.00 for breach of contract / Respondents counterclaimed $25,000.00 for disagreements with Applicant and building work, delays in build / Respondents said they were blackmailed by Applicant's lawyer to sign agreement and it was not legally binding / Held: agreement was legally binding and required Respondents to pay $17,000.00 to Applicant / Respondents breached contract by refusing to pay agreed sum / Respondents ordered to pay $17,000.00 to Applicants / Agreement was full and final settlement so Respondents cannot claim against Applicants / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.  

Contract / Loan / Applicant’ son was in a long-term relationship with Respondent  / Couple separated in 2022 / In 2020, Applicant spoke with her son about lending money for his family home / Applicant loaned $40,000 in total, first loan of $10,000 and second of $30,000 / Applicant’s son made regular repayments to the Applicant until September 2022, when he left the family home and could no longer afford repayments / $7920 had been repaid, and since the separation, Applicant’s son had repaid a further $16,040.00 / Applicant sought remaining balance from Respondent, $16,040.00 / Held: Tribunal can only consider family loans in the context of contract law and not relationship property issues / Available facts point to Respondent not being a party to the agreement /  Respondent was not involved in any conversations with the Applicant about the loan / Loan amounts were paid by bank transfer to the Applicant’s son account /  Insufficient evidence to support Respondent being party to loan agr…

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant bought a headstone from company formerly operated by Respondent and now operated by 2nd respondent / Issues with plaque quality following delivery delays / Applicant raised issues with company who made attempts to remedy the plaque / Applicant claimed refund of plaque cost and costs associated with Applicant's attempts to remediate plaque themselves / Held - Respondent not liable as contract formed after headstone business had been sold to 2nd Respondent and plaque not reasonably fit for purpose due to lopsided writing and grave bed not stablised / Also failure by 2nd respondent to ensure work done in agreed timeframe / 2nd respondent's actions amounted to failure of substantial character for purpose of remedies under Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim allowed.