Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant’s car damaged by van driven by First Respondent / First Respondent driving van in course of employment for Second Respondent / First Respondent was on phone to Second Respondent at time of collision / Applicant’s insurer claimed $3,962.53 repair costs / Held: First Respondent owed duty of care to check for cars approaching / Duty did not rest with Applicant who was in own lane / First Respondent breached duty of care / Second Respondent vicariously liable for First Respondent’s negligence / Repair costs were reasonable, excluding COVID-19 cleaning charge as no active cases at time / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,922.28 / Claim allowed.

Aviation law / Civil Aviation Act 1990 / Contract law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants booked to fly internationally with the Respondent / Flight was diverted as severe weather was predicted / Applicants claims various costs including cost of transportation, electronic visa, food, hotel stay, and insurance / Held: Respondent not responsible for costs in these circumstances, as the risk of severe weather disruptions is on the customer / However, Respondents were willing to make some good-will payments to the Applicants / Respondent to pay Applicant $1,822.67 in damages.

Contract / Applicant contracted by Respondent to provide foundation works for an agreed contract price / Dispute centres around the variation of contract price / Applicant claimed difference between original contract price and amount paid / Respondent counter-claimed and sought refund of overpayment / Held: both parties contributed equally to loss of any ability to charge client for additional supplied but unused and non-returnable steel / Respondent liable to pay 50% of original contract price plus undisputed amounts plus minor variation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $13,479.63 / Claim allowed in part.

Applicant engaged Respondent to supply and install new kitchen and laundry / Applicants discovered space for appliances was smaller than measurements on plan / Applicant and Respondent discussed refund but could not agree on appropriate amount / Applicant claimed compensation / Held: 10% of contract price appropriate for damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1700 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Respondent provided software services to Applicant / Agreement stated Respondent’s charges subject to change on 7-days’ notice / Respondent increased charges in August but did not notify Applicant until September / Respondent informed Applicant of increase by email, apologised for not notifying in advance / Applicant claimed email was apology only and did not constitute notice as given retrospectively / Applicant charged higher price for five months before cancelling agreement / Applicant claimed $600 refund / Held: email constituted notice of increase / Increase could not apply to charges before notice given / Respondent agreed to refund first month of increased charges / Applicant not entitled to refund for charges after notice period / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant intended booking business class flights from Respondent / Applicant informed flight unavailable after confirming booking / Price increased significantly after attempting to rebook / Applicant claimed Respondent breached the Fair Trading Act / Held: no breach by Respondent / Uncertainty about availability where flight involves a partner airline is made known to people before confirming booking / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant supplied Respondent with electricity / Applicant discovered electricity meters were not working properly / Electricity usage had not been measured properly / Applicant billed Respondent and Respondent did not pay / Applicant claimed $19,662.67 for unpaid bills / Held: failure by Respondent to pay amount is a breach of the terms of contract with Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,662.67 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicants purchased house / Applicants obtained building report from Respondent before purchase / Respondent’s building report noted issue with floor levels, but said it was of ‘no concern’ / Applicants later tried to sell house but had to relevel floor before sale could proceed / Applicants claimed Respondent’s building report was misleading, sought compensation for relevelling / Held: building report was not misleading / Respondent not liable to compensate Applicants for cost of levelling the floors / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant had income protection insurance with Respondent / Applicant injured foot at work, saw podiatrist but continued working / Injury did not improve, impaired Applicant’s performance / Applicant’s employment eventually terminated / Applicant started claim process with Respondent 11 months after termination, began receiving payments after 90-day policy waiting period / Applicant claimed Respondent should have backdated cover to when income first lost / Applicant sought $29,684.39 / Held: Applicant did not meet policy criteria to have cover backdated / Respondent not in breach of contract / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants entered into an agreement with Respondent for their wedding reception / Applicants dissatisfied with service provided and sought $4,979.75 in damages /  Damages sought for loss of flowers, excessive charge on alcohol, refund due to inadequate service, extra photographers cost and compensation for emotional harm / Held: implied term that Applicants would get flowers after wedding reception / Flowers were put in the rubbish / $249.83 for loss of flowers and loss of opportunity as memorabilia / Service for reception adequate in the circumstances / Unable to establish photographer’s services were more expensive than anticipated / Damages for emotional harm and loss of reputation outside of Tribunal’s jurisdiction / Order made for $247 refund of champagne and $249.83 loss of flowers / Respondent ordered to pay $496.83 / Claim granted.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicants undertook fence repairs on their boundary with Respondent / Respondent states that damage to the fence had not resulted by her actions or property / Respondent was not notified of intended repairs / Applicants claim $775.23 for the cost of repairs / Neighbour owes duty of care to ensure their property is maintained so no loss is caused to neighbours / Respondent’s tree had caused minor damage to the fence / Damage needed to be repaired immediately / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $637.23.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a boat from Respondent | Applicant claimed Respondent breached sale and purchase agreement / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented state of the boat / Applicant sought $13,833.09 for work required to the boat / Respondent counterclaimed due to selling vessel at a lower price due to its condition / Held: Applicant agreed to purchase vessel in current condition / Outlined refit details were not covered in agreement / Respondent did not breach agreement / No misrepresentation of condition of vessel / Applicant relied upon her own judgement in purchasing vessel / Claim for reconnecting the chartplotter accepted, $47.22/ No legal basis for counterclaim / Claim granted in part and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Respondent purchased vehicle from Applicant / Vehicle damaged in collision and Applicant agreed to purchase vehicle from Respondent to go through repair process with insurer / Vehicle has structural damage and is uneconomic to repair / Applicant claimed $30,000 compensation / Held: Respondent entered contract with Applicant on understanding that Applicant would purchase damaged vehicle to receive benefit of insurance claim / Respondent breached contract / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $30,000 / Claim allowed.