Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Jurisdiction / Family Dispute Resolution Act 2013 / Applicant referred to Respondent's mediation services / Mediation did not proceed as "administrative withdrawal" was noted on records / Applicant claimed Respondent failed to provide adequate services and sought $630 compensation for legal costs / Held: Applicant's claim not within the Tribunal's jurisdiction / No contract formed between parties / Applicant did not select nor pay for Respondent's services / Respondent allocated to Applicant / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent entered into a flatmate agreement / When contract ended Respondent refused to refund Applicant’s bond due to concerns about damage to the house / Respondent submitted Applicant’s cats damaged the couch, a rug and some sheets and urinated in a leather duffel bag / Respondent also claimed Applicant dumped cat litter in the garden and removed a window stay / Applicant claimed for bond refund of $640.00 / Held: Applicant was likely responsible for some of the damage such as to the bag and window stay / Respondent not able to prove that he suffered any losses as a result of the damage / Fair that Applicant should contribute to paying to clean the bag and a replacement window stay / Applicant entitled to a bond refund minus $80 compensation to Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay $560.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased a horse from First Respondent through Second Respondent’s agency / Horse initially behaved well, but gradually exhibited bad behaviour, including bucking riders off / Applicant claimed horse’s nature was misrepresented to her and sought refund of purchase price / Held: Respondents represented horse as suitable for person with experience Applicant described herself as having / One previous occasion of bucking did not amount to a vicious propensity / Two vets and a professional horse trainer all stated horse’s behaviour appeared normal / Applicant failed to prove horse Respondents misrepresented horse / No breach of consumer guarantees, as horse was acceptable quality and fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties owned neighbouring properties / Applicant approached Respondent about paying for replacement boundary fence / Parties did not agree / Applicant issued fencing notice proposing Respondent pay 100% of $6154.80 cost of new fence and retaining wall / Respondent denied all liability for proposed work / Respondent accepted parts of fence needed replacing but maintained it was due to a lack of proper retaining and drainage on Applicant’s side / Respondent said she would be happy with new fence if Applicant paid for retaining and drainage costs / Respondent counterclaimed $4000.00 compensation for stress in responding to Applicant’s ‘false allegations’ and requested protection and non-harassment orders / Held: existing boundary fence not adequate as decaying in places / Appropriate for cost of new fence to be shared between parties / Total fencing cost accepted to be $2622.00, each neighbour’s half-share being $1311.00 / Tribunal not able to issue protecti…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased a tenanted apartment from Second Respondent for $29,000.00 at an auction held by First Respondent / During pre-settlement inspection, Applicant was informed by tenants of a leak in the sink and shower / Settlement went ahead, but Applicant subsequently resold the apartment / Applicant claimed $11,000.00 against Respondents, including $600.00 spent on partial repairs and $8,000.00 for loss on resale of apartment / Held: contract for sale did not include usual warranty regarding chattels and amenities being delivered in reasonable working order / Liability under CCLA or FTA required proof of misrepresentation / Applicant did not allege any untrue statements by Respondents, only a failure to alert her to the leaks / Absence of any evidence that Respondents knew of the leaks, so Applicant had not proven any misrepresentation by silence / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants engaged Respondent’s property management services / Tenant advised of a leak in the property / Applicants claimed Respondent did not fulfil its obligations as property manager in a timely manner / Namely, Respondent did not carrying out a quarterly property inspection which would have identified leak was ongoing, and later advised leak was fixed when it was not / Applicants claimed $30,000 for loss, including cost of replacing carpet and lost rental income / Held: more likely that Respondent did complete inspection and affected areas of carpet found to be dry / Respondent did not give clear statement that previous leak was fixed / Not satisfied Respondent had obligation to identify and attend to leaking problem / Body corporate and building manager had that responsibility / Not satisfied Respondent failed to act on issue insofar as they had an obligation to act / Not proven Respondent breached agreement with Applicants / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Carriage of goods / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant sought Respondent's services to move her furniture / Applicant claimed compensation for damage to furniture / Held: Applicant entitled to recover rental bond loss and glass door repair cost / Applicant entitled to compensation for washing machine repair cost / Respondent was a professional movers company who failed to comply with implied guarantees for consumers and had not provided services with reasonable care and skill / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,304.34 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant had a business making and selling spirits / Applicant bought a pallet of spirit bottles from Respondent for packaging its product / Applicant claimed bottles were defective because of an irregularity at the base of the bottles which was visually unacceptable / Applicant claimed $5,500.00 in damages / Held: bottles were for commercial use so CGA did not apply to their sale / Bottles were of merchantable quality / Bottles were of a quality and state to be saleable to a reasonable purchaser / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased bedding package from Respondent for $6000.00 / Bed package was delivered but Applicants noted significant damage / Respondent agreed to provide a complete replacement of package / Respondent failed to provide a replacement / Applicants claimed $6000 plus filing fee / Respondent agreed Applicants entitled to a refund but argued they should only receive what Respondent received in payment from the credit company, $6,000.00 less the merchant fees / Held: bed package was not replaced and Applicants were out of pocket $6,000.00 / Applicants not party to agreement between Respondent and credit company / If any paid merchant fees were to be reimbursed then it was a matter for Respondent to discuss with credit company / Respondent ordered to refund Applicants $6000.00 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.

Damages / Dispute about rental car costs Applicant incurred when his car was damaged / Applicant’s car unusable for two months / Applicant used a courtesy car for some of that time but had to rent a car to travel between cities for work, at cost of $971.75 / Respondent’s insurer offered to pay $694.60 / Insurer’s position was that savings were made when renting a car instead of using your own car, such as road user charges and wear and tear, which should be deducted from rent costs / Insurer claimed lesser amount satisfied insured’s legal liability / Held: Applicant did everything in his control to reduce cost expecting to be fully reimbursed / Full rental cost should be paid / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $971.75 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to repair leak in his rental property / Respondent stated there was no obvious source of the leak, but re-screwed a section of the roof and repaired dented sheets, which as best it could assess were a likely source of the leak / Respondent invoiced $2,668.29 for work, which Applicant paid / Applicant brought claim for refund of the $2,669.29, claiming Respondent did not repair the leak / Held: unable to find Respondent carried out “wrong” repair / No evidence to support that it was more likely than not that Respondent carried out its assessment and repair without reasonable care and skill / Reasonable practice for roofer to make a best estimate of likely cause of leak based on its experience / Roof was leak free for some months after repair, lending support to Respondent’s work having been successful / Respondent’s work did not fail / Claim dismissed.

Jurisdiction / Property / Applicants claimed their neighbours, the Respondents, erected unattractive screens on their property near the parties’ joint fence / Applicants also objected that Respondents hung washing close to shared fence which was visible from their property / Applicants sought an order that these items be removed / Claim had no monetary value / Held: Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim / Applicants’ claim related to aesthetic considerations, and did not involve any damage or injury to their own property / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicants’ rental property was managed by Respondent / Issues arose after discovery of asbestos in the house / Respondent terminated property management agreement without notice “due to irreconcilable differences” / Applicants were dissatisfied with service received during contract, and believed Respondent terminated the contract wrongfully / Applicants claimed $9,000.00 in damages / Parties agreed Respondent would refund Applicants $598.00 for initial asbestos test / Held: claims regarding tree and garage door repairs not proven / Applicants not liable for HRV servicing charge, therefore Respondent to refund $196.85 charge / Respondent not responsible for damage to property during tenancy, as not proven that Respondent’s inspections were deficient or that Respondent should have recovered more money from tenants in Tenancy Tribunal / Respondent breached contract by terminating without notice, Applicants entitled to $613.53 compensation / Respondent ordered to pay $1,408.38 …