Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant was engaged by Respondent to inspect a collapsed drain using specialist camera equipment / During inspection, an employee of the Respondent cut through the collapsed drainpipe, severing the camera cord / Applicant sought compensation for net loss of $3,401.83 / Held: both parties failed to take reasonable care / Respondent, as head contractor had a greater duty of care and failed to act with reasonable care / Applicant’s representative also contributed to damage by not reminding Respondent’s workers about the camera in the drain / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,211.19 / Applicant’s insurer ordered to pay the first $350 of the sum to Applicants / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Respondent and Applicant had a vehicle collision as Applicant turned out of a driveway / Respondent accepted liability, but disputed amount claimed by the Applicant and their insurer / Applicant's vehicle was assessed as uneconomic to repair / Applicant's insurer obtained a registered valuation for the vehicle of $6000.00 / Applicant and their insurer claimed $6196.20 / Respondent obtained three vehicle valuations for Applicants car, values varied between $1849.00 and $2750.00 / Applicant admitted he purchased the vehicle for $3500 in 2020 / Held: car's purchase price adequately reflected market value / Car value would have reduced via depreciation in subsequent three years / Pre-accident value of Applicant's vehicle was therefore $3000.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3196.20 (being $2946.20 insured loss and $250.00 uninsured loss) to Applicant's insurer / Claim granted in part.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased bidet in 2021 / Bidet malfunctioned in 2024 / Applicant claimed $787.95 for removal, repair, and reinstallation / Applicant claimed Respondent told her that the warranty had expired and repairs were not covered / Respondents stated they had responded to an initial enquiry from a third party and gave information about the estimated costs of repair / Applicant then obtained services of her own choice from the installer / Respondent denied they should be liable for the costs / Respondent did not accept the CGA applied to the bidet repairs given the time passed since it was purchased and installed / Held: manufacturer’s estimate of the bidet’s life expectancy was approximately 10-12 years / Faulty part of the bidet was not of acceptable quality as only lasted three years / CGA entitled a consumer to have the failure remedied / CGA also permitted additional compensation to be paid where other loss or damage to the consu…

Contract /  Applicant hired a car from Respondent / Applicant paid the 20 day rental fee of $1481.80 in advance / Within five minutes of driving the vehicle, Applicant had an accident, colliding with parked cars / Applicant claimed the vehicle had mechanical defects and that she was unable to control it / Respondent declined to give Applicant a replacement vehicle / Applicant claimed for a refund of the amount paid for rental in advance / Held:  no evidence of a mechanical defect / Accident was more likely due to driver error / Reasonable for the Respondent not to provide a replacement vehicle in the circumstances / Hire agreement silent on whether fees paid in advance should be refunded when no replacement car in provided / Contract did not provide for the retention of pre-paid rental when the contract was cancelled /  Applicant entitled to a refund of 19 days hireage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,293.71 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent for $6,300 / Subsequently, Applicant experienced mechanical issues, including stalling and engine failure / Mechanics found blockages and metal deposits in the oil / Respondent claimed the car had run well during his ownership and he was unaware of any defects / Applicant claimed for refund of $6,300, repair costs of $572.98, cost of new engine at $4,933.50 and Disputes Tribunal filing fee of $180.00 / Respondent counterclaimed for $964.43 / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent the state of the car / Applicant’s claim dismissed as she took a risk in purchasing an old car with a high odometer reading / Respondent’s counterclaim dismissed as the costs sought were not allowed under the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants own property neighbouring Respondent / Respondent's father told Appellants of concerns about condition of shared boundary fence / Appellants discussed fence repairs and division of costs / Applicants claimed $4999 from Respondent as contribution to fence costs / Held: no enforceable agreement about fence costs was created / Respondent not liable to pay / Contractual elements of agreement and certainity in respect of Respondent's liability for fence costs not present between parties / Necessary notice procedure not followed / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a campervan from Respondent for $30,000.00 / Applicant subsequently discovered a severe rust issue causing leaks, which was uneconomic to repair / Applicant sought a full reimbursement of purchase price / Held:  advertisement did not misrepresent the vehicle's condition / During the Applicant's inspection of the vehicle prior to the sale, it was evident that repairs were needed, including addressing rust / Onus was on the Applicant to make all necessary checks before he agreed to purchase / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased an inflatable dinghy from the Respondent / Purchase was made via the Respondent’s website / Dinghy was advertised with a photo showing a dinghy with rowlocks / Dinghy was delivered but was not used straight-away due to weather issues / When the dinghy was first used it was discovered it had straps not rowlocks / Straps were not useable as rowlocks / Applicants contacted Respondent and were offered a $200 refund / Applicants sought a refund for the dinghy as they said without rowlocks it is not fit for purpose / Applicants also claimed that the dingy was sold to them under a mis-statement / Held: photo from the Respondent’s website clearly showed rowlocks which were not present on the purchased dinghy / Difference between the dinghy as depicted and the dinghy as delivered, was  a significance deviation from the description represented by the website photo / Respondent breached the guarantee under the legislation / Accept…

Property / Applicants and Respondents were friends and agreed to rent a house together / Friendship became strained / Parties agreed Applicants would leave and Respondents would stay on in the tenancy / Applicant said he paid the bond and was due to be refunded the full amount of $2,720.00 / Applicant also claimed for one week rent paid in advance, and to be refunded half share of a jointly purchased vacuum cleaner and a table / Held: Respondent agreed to pay Applicant half of what they paid for vacuum cleaner, being $118.73 / Respondent was happy for Applicant to collect table, but Applicant chose not to, therefore no award made for table / During hearing Applicant agreed no rent was due to him / Absent any written agreement that Applicant paid the full bond, Applicant failed to prove he was entitled to a greater share than half the bond / Applicants entitled to be refunded $1,360.00 for their portion of the bond and $118.73 for their share of the vacuum cleaner / Respondents ordered …

Contract / Applicant and her husband were unable to board an international flight with the Respondent airline / Applicant had checked in online and had no luggage to check in / Upon arrival at the airport, Applicant and her husband were advised that they had to print their boarding passes before proceeding beyond the security checks / They were advised that their boarding passes could not be printed and they would not be able to board the flight / Applicant was advised that they would need to rebook their flights / Applicant and her husband booked international flights for the following day / Applicant sought $1237.90 from for two one-way international flights ($834.90), one night’s accommodation ($295) and meals ($108) / Held: terms and conditions on the ticket and boarding passes were not sufficiently clear / Information provided by the Respondent was open to interpretation and not fit for purpose for customers like the Applicant / Respondent breached the contract by not allowing the…

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant painted Respondent's property / Respondent disputed invoice / Respondent paid partial amount only / Applicant claimed payment for remaining balance of invoice / Held: parties did not reach an agreement as to price / No certainty on cost of job / Applicant made a misleading representation as to the price of services / Applicant breached FTA / Not reasonable for Respondent to charge apprentice painters the same as experienced painters / Reasonable figure calculated higher than alternative quote sourced by Respondent as four coats of paint were needed / Respondent liable to pay part of remaining balance / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Quasi contract / Property / Applicant and Respondent were flatmates / Applicant moved out of flat / Applicant refused to pay rent further than five weeks until Respondent found a new flatmate / Respondent reduced Applicant's bond / Applicant claimed rent and debt collector costs / Held: agreed in the flat that a flatmate remained liable to pay rent until a new flatmate was found / Therefore, Applicant obliged to pay all the rent until a new flatmate was found / Applicant's flatmates not liable to pay debt collection costs / Claim dismissed.