Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Interest / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Applicant engaged by Respondent as an independent contractor for data entry work / Applicant filed claim against Respondent for $360.84, unpaid sums of $45.40 and $20.44 plus interest, damages for time pursuing payment, and filing fee / Unpaid sums since been paid / Applicant now claimed $840.00 in compensation for late payment, including interest, time spent and filing fee / Held: no contractual provision for interest in circumstances / DTA provided for interest to be ordered at Tribunal’s discretion / DTA does not allow for interest where debt was paid before hearing / Circumstances not met for costs to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took his mobile phone to Respondent for repair / Respondent said they would need to send phone away to be repaired, Applicant agreed / Months later, Respondent told Applicant that they could no longer contact the repair company / Respondent advised company may have gone into liquidation / Applicant did not hear anything further from Respondent and did not get his phone back / Applicant sought $350.00 from Respondent / Held: Respondent had obligation to ensure phone was kept safe while it was being repaired, even when sent to a third party / Phone was not returned to Applicant within reasonable time / Respondent had breached its obligations to Applicant / Applicant said value of a used phone of the same model and age as his phone was $350.00 / Applicant’s phone likely to have a lower value than phone in full working order / Respondent ordered to pay $300.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Quasi-contract / Applicant claimed he had an agreement with his mother to store some of her belongings for $50.00 per week / Applicant’s mother since passed away / Applicant claimed $13,167.50 for storage fees from Respondent, executor of Applicant’s mother’s estate / Held: insufficient evidence there was an agreement between Applicant and his mother for storage to be paid for / Insufficient evidence  there was objectively a reasonable expectation by Applicant that he would be compensated for storage / Claim for payment raised for the first time four years after alleged arrangement began / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent collided with Applicant’s parked car / Applicant’s car was towed and assessed as being uneconomic to repair / Applicant claimed $24,200.00 for loss of his car / Held: Respondent failed to take reasonable care not to drive in a manner that caused damage to another vehicle / Person who carelessly causes damage to another person’s car must pay cost of putting other person back in position they would have been in had damage not occurred / Applicant suffered loss of $23,000, $25,000.00 pre-accident value of car, less $2,000.00 Applicant received from selling car to wrecking company / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $23,000 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant leases premises from Respondent / Respondent invoiced Applicant for illegal billboard on building / Applicant claimed non-liability for invoice payment and sought an order that Respondent is liable to pay towards signage removal costs / Held: Applicant not liable to pay invoice because there is no basis in the lease for any charge for signage / No evidence parties reached an agreement for payment / Applicant agreed not to pursue contribution of costs claim from Respondent / Applicant not liable to pay Respondent $11,007.14 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Compensation / Applicant's house damaged by earthquake / Respondent was Applicant's insurer / Court of Appeal and High Court heard matters / Applicant and Respondent signed a deed of settlement / Applicant claimed Respondent has not dealt with him unfairly by not being honest in providing fair settlement / Applicant claimed $8,818.60 which is 10% of professional fees plus GST and 10% contingencies and interest since 2011 / Held: Applicant signed two settlement agreements with Respondent, each expressed to be full and final settlement of all existing or future claims / Applicant provided no evidence decision of court was misleading or deceptive / Claim struck out.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased a refrigerator with a chilled water dispenser from supplier / Applicants later noticed fridge would only dispense 2-3 glasses of chilled water after which only regular room temperature water was available / Technician confirmed this was usual and expected operation of water-dispensing function and not a defect / Applicants wished to keep fridge and obtain full refund of purchase price from Respondent (the manufacturer) / Held: refrigerator did not comply with description given, due to its limited capacity of chilled water, which should have been disclosed by sales assistant when the dispensing function was being discussed / As sales representative was acting as a servant or agent of the manufacturer when selling their goods, this was a failure of guarantee by the Respondent / Respondent ordered to refund 5% of purchase price ($133.95) to Applicants / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Applicant allowed Respondent to use his driveway to relocate a house onto Respondent’s section / Use was conditional on Respondent fixing any damage caused in move / Applicant claimed $12,132.00 due to a water pipe leak he claimed was caused by Respondent’s house movers / Parties agreed moving truck caused subsidence to Applicant’s driveway / Respondent promised to repair driveway but had not done so / Respondent submitted damage was independent of house move and he was not liable / Held: insufficient evidence to show causative link between truck using driveway and pipe leak / Leak was discovered months after house relocation / Subsidence issue occurred in part of driveway away from leaks / Applicant’s water bills indicated no increase in water usage shortly after house relocation / Applicant failed to prove Respondent’s use of driveway caused pipe damage / No breach of agreement / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Parties were involved in a vehicle collision at a roundabout / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable because she failed to give way / Applicant claimed $10,287.80 for vehicle repairs / Respondent claimed Applicant was responsible because she had entered roundabout before Applicant and he was required to give way to her / Respondent also claimed Applicant did not indicate his intention to exit roundabout / Respondent counterclaimed $2,890.00 / Held: more likely than not that Applicant had entered intersection before Respondent / Respondent failed to give way to traffic / Respondent therefore did not take reasonable care to drive in a manner that does not cause harm to other road users / Applicant did exercise reasonable care when driving through roundabout / Respondent ordered to pay $10,287.80 / Claim allowed and counterclaimed dismissed.

Contract / Applicant leased premises from Respondent for two-year term, then on a month-by-month basis / Applicant gave notice to end lease on 10 August, on understanding required notice period was 20 days / Respondent replied that on a month-to-month basis, in line with original lease dates, rent would be due until end of August / On 7 August, parties did walk-through of property with incoming tenant, and all agreed that no make-good work was required / Three months later, new tenant changed its position and demanded remedial work / Respondent completed work and demanded payment from Applicant / Respondent used bank guarantee to recover $17,737.55 from tenant for rent to end of August and reinstatement costs / Applicant claimed return of $17,737.55 / Held: lease provided for termination at expiry of 20 days’ notice / Therefore tenancy terminated on 10 August, and rent and expenses were only payable to that date / Agreement on 7 August was a binding settlement agreement between Applica…

Contract / Applicant booked accommodation with Respondent through third-party website / Total cost was $475.00 for 21 to 26 January / Applicant did not arrive to check in on 21 January / Applicant received notification via third-party website / Applicant confirmed he had not checked in and entered message in text box stating he intended to check in on 23 January / Respondent did not receive that information / Respondent charged full booking cost to Applicant’s credit card / Applicant arrived to check in on 23 January but Respondent had resold room and no accommodation was available / Applicant claimed $380.00 for four nights’ unused accommodation / Held: Applicant did not cancel booking / Respondent’s cancellation policy did not make clear that a no-show on the first booked day would be treated as cancellation / Applicant entitled to refund for three nights’ accommodation / Respondent ordered to pay $285.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked international return flights for her mother through the Respondent / First flight departed at scheduled time but return flight left three hours early stranding the Applicant’s mother at the airport / Applicant was told that her mother had failed to reconfirm her flight 72 hours before departure, therefore Respondent could not help her / Applicant made a booking with another airline and her mother was able to fly home two days later / Applicant claimed compensation of $1,050.90, cost for extra return flight home / Held:  Respondent did not manage the flight with reasonable care and skill / Respondent was advised of flight change three months before scheduled departure / Significant flight change notifications were part of the agreed services provided by Respondent / Not reasonable for the Respondent to assume the airline would contact Applicant / Respondent refused to help Applicant book another flight, so she was left to he…

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicants purchased home from Respondents / After moving in, Applicants noticed water leaking from kitchen ceiling immediately below upstairs bathroom / On inspection it was discovered water was leaking from an improperly sealed drain, part of a shower installed by Respondents / Applicants spent $51,000 on remedial work / Applicants claimed $30,000 from Respondents for breach of warranty that all work done by Respondents was compliant with building consent / Held: not proven that Respondents knew of the leak at date of agreement / Bathroom renovation undertaken by Respondents required consenting, although Respondent was not aware of that  requirement / Consent not obtained / Respondents were in breach of warranty / Applicants renovated entire bathroom, but Respondents’ liability limited to shower issues / Respondents ordered to pay $15,846.45 / Claim allowed in part.