Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant leased a suite in commercial premises operated by Respondent / Weather event caused a leak in some of the other suites in the premises and part of the common areas / Applicant claimed a rent rebate of $3,300.00 for disruption to its business / Held: lease agreement only required that a portion of the building needed to be damaged for the Applicant to be entitled to a rebate / Applicant was therefore entitled to a rebate and $3,300.00 was a fair amount / Respondent ordered to pay $3,300.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant bought Respondent's cleaning business / Two months post-purchase, business' client stopped Applicant's cleaning services / Applicant claimed Respondent knew client did not intend to continue contracted cleaning services / Applicant claimed refund of purchase price and other costs / Held: no tangible evidence to show Respondent knew, was told, or had reason to believe client was going to discontinue cleaning services / Applicant failed to establish Respondent's misrepresentation or misleading conduct / Applicant worked on site for two months which means the client knew of business handover to new ownership / Cancellation not linked to Respondent's proper handover if it were established / Respondent's counterclaim for compensation on reputational damage, stress and harassment dismissed / Claim dismissed.

Trespass / Respondent arranged tree-felling as part of planned subdivision next to Applicant's property / Tree on Applicant's property was cut down and surrounding vegetation damaged / Appellants claimed for loss of tree and associated loss of privacy, shelter, amenity value / Respondent counterclaimed for feeling harassed and intimidated by Applicants' persistent requests for compensation / Held: Actions taken by or on behalf of respondent amounted to trespass to land and respondent failed to take reasonable steps to discharge duty of care to Applicants / Respondent liable for loss and damage to Applicants' property and loss of enjoyment of their property / Communications from Applicants to Respondents objectively not bullying or harassment and Tribunal has no jurisdiction to award exemplary damages / Counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a dress from Respondent / Applicant wore the dress and noticed a tear along a seam / Applicant informed Respondent and dress was replaced and a $100 voucher provided / Applicant later noticed a tear in the replacement dress in the same place as the original dress / Applicant took dress back to Respondent / Respondent advised it would not be refunding price because dress had been damaged / Applicant claimed for a refund stating the dress was not of acceptable quality / Respondent stated that the Applicant did not have the right to reject the dress as it has been damaged whilst in her possession / Held: dress was not of acceptable quality / However, Applicant not entitled to remedy / Respondent produced evidence that the dress was damaged including dirt marks and burn marks within lining / Damage consistent with the dress being worn and subjected to inappropriate treatment / Evidence indicated dress was damaged through wea…

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…

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought car from Respondent for purpose of towing boat / Applicant took car for service and was told car is unsafe for towing a boat and last WOF should not have been issued / Applicant believed Respondent had said car had 90 day warranty so asked Respondent to pay / Applicant arranged for repair work to be done and claimed for cost of this / Held - vehicle was safe for towing  and was of acceptable quality at time of purchase / Applicant unable to show sufficient evidence to prove Respondents had offered a 90 day warranty on car / Claim dismissed. 

Consumer / Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant installed hot water system produced by Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with hot water and Respondents sent technicians to investigate / Applicant still experienced issues and rejected the goods by having unit replaced / Applicant says original unit was faulty and claimed for cost of the replacement unit and installation / Held - there was an issue with the unit itself on the balance of probabilities / Applicant would ordinarily entitled to relief under s 18 Consumer Guarantees Act / Applicant had already disposed of unit so claim cannot continue because of s 20(1) Consumer Guarantees Act / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant contracted respondent to provide building materials to specification / Excessive amounts of building materials leftover after building completion / Applicant claimed compensation for unused materials / Held - Applicant received correct order and was unable to show Respondents had breached contract / Applicant had accepted the order and respondents provided building materials per order / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant ordered a custom-made couch from Respondent and paid $1,499.00 / Term of contract was that couch would be delivered to Applicant’s home / Respondent did not successfully deliver the couch due to size of the couch / Applicant claimed full refund of $1,499.00 / Held: Respondent breached contract by failing to deliver couch / Parties agreed Applicant told Respondent he had a “tiny doorway” / It was an essential term of the contract that the couch would be made a size that would fit through Applicant’s “tiny doorway” / Size of doorway was the reason Applicant ordered a custom-made couch / Respondent failed to make a couch that could fit through the doorway therefore Applicant was entitled to full refund / Respondent ordered to pay $1,499.00 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Defective goods / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a bed from Respondent for $798.00 / Payment was made by another party / When the bed was delivered, Applicant noticed the bed had missing components and minor damage / Applicant claimed $480.00 as he remedied the missing parts himself / Applicant asked for a partial refund, but Respondent’s policy was that any partial refund was to be returned to party who paid for the bed / Held: bed was not free of minor defects when it was purchased / Respondent failed to rectify the issue in a reasonable time or in a way that avoided further issues / Party who paid did not suffer any consequential loss / Applicant had to find his own remedy / Applicant requested reasonable compensation for his efforts / Reasonable to pay $350.00 directly to Applicant for missing parts and inconvenience / Claim allowed.

Fencing / Parties were neighbours / Applicant wished to erect fence on properties' boundary / Earlier decision ordered 1.5m fence to be built and for Respondents to pay half the cost / Applicant applied for rehearing following new guidance from council about height permissions and a builder recommending a retaining wall / Local council advised maximum height allowed without consent was 2m / Applicant obtained resource consent from Council allowing 2m fence / Builder told Applicant necessary to build retaining wall because works on Respondents' property raised ground level on Applicant's property / Held: not appropriate to change original order for 1.5m fence but above 1.5m allowed where uneven land required it / Not established further work or retaining wall required to build fence / Not appropriate to revisit other aspects of original order / Claim allowed in part.  

Contract / misrepresentation / Contracts and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased boat from Respondent / Second respondent reported engine was in good condition / Engine developed problems after purchase that required a full replacement / Applicant claims cost of new engine as damages / Held - Respondents not liable for misrepresentation / Respondents did not know engine was in poor condition needing imminent repair or replacement / Applicant was responsible as buyer for getting mechanic's assessment of engine or asking specifically about its condition / Respondent had not experienced engine issues / Applicant knew second respondent was not a boat mechanic and had done visual inspection only / Claim dismissed.