Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant engaged the Respondent to move his belongings to another city / Respondent was to be paid 50% at the time of booking and 50% upon delivery / Applicant paid deposit and belongings were shipped to a different city to be stored before delivery / Applicant’s belongings were not delivered on time / Applicant was paying rent for a property he could not live in without his belongings /  Applicant tried to make contact with Respondent who was evasive / Respondent engaged third party to deliver his belongings to the designated city / Applicant claimed $1,662.50 for part performance of the contract and for two weeks rent / Held: Respondent breached the contract / Respondent made part performance of their obligations to the Applicant / Respondent failed to deliver Applicant's belongings to designated city in a reasonable time frame / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,662.50 / Claim granted.

Contract / Respondent signed contract for services as independent contractor with Applicant / Respondent terminated contract leaving balance of advances on commission paid / Applicant claimed payment of weekly advances and insurance premiums incurred on Respondent's behalf / Held: Respondent liable to refund advance commissions received if he did not achieve commission payment / Respondent breached contract by failing to refund Applicant for insurance premiums paid on his behalf / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,109.91 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Director of Respondent companies booked a property belonging to the Applicant for two nights / Applicant later discovered that the First Respondent used the Applicant’s property for photoshoots for the Second Respondent /  Applicant notified the Second Respondent that it had breached the booking rules as they require permission from the owner to be obtained for photoshoots / Applicant requested $3000.00 or removal of all footage filmed at the Applicant’s property / Director of the Respondent companies offered $500 on a goodwill basis /  Applicant claimed $1100, based on the difference between $1784 paid for the accommodation and commercial rate for use of the property / Held: First Respondent was not party to any contract with the Applicant / No contractual basis upon which the Applicant can charged the Second Respondent for either damages or an additional fee / No breach of contract by the Second Respondent / No term or condition in the contract relating to commercial use o…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 (CCLA) / Applicant engaged Respondent to transport his belongings between two cities / Applicant purchased basic insurance for the transportation / Applicants belongings were placed in a storage facility operated by a third party / Items were then moved to the Applicant's house by another moving company / While unpacking, Applicant found many of his belongings were damaged / Applicant was informed his insurance would not cover the damage / Applicant sought $3,975.00 for damaged and missing items / Respondent claimed contract was at owner's risk as per their terms and conditions / Contract was never signed by Applicant / Held: contract did not meet the requirements of the CCLA / It was a contract for carriage at limited carrier’s risk / Damage occurred while the goods were the responsibility of the Respondent / Missing items were not recorded on the inventory / No evidence that they were on the truck / Applicant entitled to $1,900.00 / Cla…

Building contracts / Building Act 2004 (B Act) / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent was converting a residential dwelling into a commercial premises / Respondent engaged Applicant to install a fire alarm system and emergency lighting / Applicant completed fire alarm system and was paid by Respondent / Respondent sent Applicant building consent number via text message / Consent had not yet been approved / Council advised Respondent that consent was refused due to contravention of B Act / Respondent then carried out work for emergency lighting under the same consent number / Applicant served two infringement notices of $1,000.00 from the Council for breaching B Act, which they paid / Applicant sought $2,000.00 from the Respondent in reimbursement of the fines paid / Held: Applicant's responsibility to check validity of resource consent for installation of the fire alarm system / Not sufficient to rely on its clie…

Warranties / Building Act 2004 (BA) / Applicants purchased property with various building and plumbing works done / Applicants discovered water leaking from bathroom to lounge ceiling / Previous owners put them in contact with Respondent 1 who had done the work / Respondent 1 agreed to fix leak but was unable to arrange a contractor to do work / Respondent 1 offered to pay for repairs if Applicants arranged contractor / Applicants claim Respondent 2 as a subcontractor for Respondent 1 is also liable / Applicants claim Respondent 1 did not carry out work with reasonable care and skill as per BA s 362I(1)(d)(i) / Held: Respondent 2 was not party to original works so not liable / Work was not up to BA standard / Applicants are entitled to $8226.74 as cost of getting repairs done / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Respondents rented a storage unit from Applicant company / Applicant company made three claims / Firstly, Applicants claimed Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / Secondly, Applicants claimed Respondents were responsible for damage to  storage units caused by a third party / Lastly, Applicants claimed Respondents had abandoned the storage unit / Held: Respondents breached the contract by not paying the fee due / However, Applicant had not taken steps to minimise its loss / Respondents as renters were responsible for damages caused by third parties to their unit and adjoining units / Respondents did not abandon the storage unit, but the Applicants were within their rights to remove and dispose of the goods in the unit / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $200 in costs to repair storage unit damage / Applicant could not claim the cost of breach of contract as they had breached the contract themselves by not providing the second swipe card / Claim gran…

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 (FA) /  Parties owned adjoining sections / Applicant built a retaining wall and fence / Applicant asked Respondent to share 50% of the costs, $1656.05 / Respondent only agreed to pay $1000 / Applicant claimed $3,086.30 for the full cost of the retaining wall and $1656.05 for fencing as well as legal fees and interest / Held: retaining wall was only required because of the actions of the Applicant’s builder / Fence was attached to the retaining wall so deemed part of the same structure / Applicant failed to serve the Respondent with a FA notice / Respondent not compelled to pay for the retaining wall/fence structure / Interest and legal fees are only awarded in exceptional circumstances and do not apply here / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving her car down a street on a day where there was high wind / A branch from Applicant’s tree fell and hit the bonnet of the Respondent’s car / The vehicle was damaged in the incident and since written off / Applicant claims $4,915 for the car repair and transport costs / Held: Respondent’s were negligent as the tree falling was reasonably foreseeable / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $3,300.

Contract / Applicant signed a contract for a wedding reception with the Respondent / Contract stated all payments were non-refundable but event date could be moved due to COVID-19 lockdowns / Lockdown restrictions were enforced / Applicant was advised she would need to reschedule the event / Government then announced the COVID-19 Alert system were being replaced with traffic light settings / Applicant tried to vary her contract by way of telephone call / Applicant claimed the Government lockdown clause became void when the traffic light system was introduced / Applicant claimed refund of $3,000.00 deposit / Held: lockdown clause did not become void when the Alert system ended / Only remedy was to re-schedule the event which the Applicant did not wish to do / Tribunal will not undermine otherwise legally enforcable and binding contract solely on the basis that the contract agreed might be unfair to one party / Applicant did not establish claim for deposit refund / Claim dismissed. 

Negligence / Car driven by second Respondent collided with the rear of car driven by first Respondent / First Respondent’s car then veered into shop occupied by Applicant / Considerable damage caused / Applicant’s insurer has met the costs of repairs and now claims those costs from first Respondent, their insurer, and second Respondent / Held: second Respondent fully liable for the damage / Impact from behind might have caused first Respondent to react in confused way and accelerate into shop / Claim against first Respondent dismissed / Second Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,285.20.

Negligence / During a cyclone, Respondents' garden shed blew away and hit the Applicants' vehicle causing damage / Applicant claimed $4,378.20 for vehicle repairs / Held: duty of care for Respondent to prevent consequences they could reasonably foresee would result in harm / Duty was not breached as Respondent had secured the shed in excess of the manufacturer's recommendation / Applicant failed to provide any contrary evidence / Cyclone was considered an Act of God / Respondent could not have anticipated or guarded against circumstances, nor foreseen the damage to the Applicant's vehicle / Claim dismissed.