Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Applicant engaged the Respondent company to carry out orthodonic treatment / Contract was signed by Respondent and the dentist / Balance was paid in monthly instalments / Dentist passed away / Respondent company informed the Applicant that her treatment would have to continue at another practice / Respondent indicated that they would not be passing the Applicant's balance to the other dental practice / Remainder of the Applicant's treatment performed at another dental practice /  Applicant incurred extra costs and travel expenses / Respondent argued contract was between the Applicant and the deceased dentist / Applicant argued contract was between herself and the Respondent company / Held: dentist had acted with the authority of the Respondent / Respondent company was bound by the contract / Respondent company was a party to the contract so had an obligation to provide the treatment / Costs were reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / Respondent ordered to pay Applican…

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant claims contribution for the erection of a new fence / Applicant claimed that the existing fence was not adequate and needed replacing / Respondents counterclaimed this decision and objected the work on the proposed fence / Applicant claimed $1248.00 for the new fence / Held: Applicant’s claim was struck out as tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim / Applicant to pay for the replacement of the section he removed / Claim dismissed, Applicant ordered to pay $560.00 to Respondents

Tort / Negligence / Bailment / Applicant had driven their motorcycle to complete a compliance check / vehicle testing company parked applicant’s motorcycle in a storage area for motorcycles / Respondent hit applicant’s motorcycle with his vehicle while exiting testing station / motorcycle was taken to third party to get repairs / Applicant claims cost of repairs from respondent and vehicle testing company / Held: vehicle testing company liable as they had complete control over the storage location of Applicant’s motorcycle / Respondent did not take proper care when exiting the vehicle testing centre / vehicle testing company and Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $4,840.74 / Claim upheld.

Contract / Specific Performance / Applicant and Respondent entered into contract for supply of shelving / shelving split into two types, Type A and Type B / quote for $36,000.00+GST ($41,400.00) / Respondent paid $20,700.00 to Applicant / Applicant delivered Type A shelves to Respondent / Respondent refused to pay remaining balance for Type B shelves / Applicant claims $20,700.00 plus $2,000.00 for storage of type B shelves / Respondent claims that Type B shevles did not form part of contract / Held: contract was for the supply of both types of shelves / Respondent to pay Applicant $20,700.00 / Applicant to deliver Type B shelves to Respondent upon receipt of payment / claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant rented holiday home from Respondent / Applicant was unhappy with the cleanliness of the property / Applicant advised the Respondent of the issues / Respondent organised a cleaner to remedy the problem / Applicant claimed $1560.00, a 50% reduction in the holiday home rental / Held: evidence was inconsistent and did not fully support the claim / Respondent provided a remedy within a reasonable amount of time / Holiday home found to be reasonably clean / Respondent was not in breach of the contract or of the CGA / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant brought reformer bed off Respondent via an online auction / Applicant was dissatisfied with its condition / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented the condition inducing her to purchase it / Applicant claimed $1,740.89, cost to repair the reformer bed together with the Tribunal’s filing fee / Held: Respondent gave opinions as to the condition of the reformer bed and did not give clear statements / Applicant made assumptions based on the Respondent's opinion / Respondent therefore did not misrepresent the reformer bed and did not induce the Applicant into the purchase / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s car was parked / Respondent was towing a gated trailer / Trailer gate opened causing damage to Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer claims cost of repair $3,411.65 / Respondent claims trailer defective when they hired it / Hire company disputes claim / Held: Respondent liable for repair of Applicant’s car / Applicant’s insurer has paid for repairs/ Respondent to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,411.65 / Claim upheld.

Negligence / Applicant hired a trailer from the Respondent / Respondent's employee helped Applicant attach the trailer to his car / Employee pushed the trailer into Applicant's car causing damage / Applicant claimed for damages of $1,307.38 for repairs / Held: Respondent's employee owed Applicant duty of care / Respondent vicariously liable as negligent act was in the course of normal business and in the scope of his or her employment / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,307.38 / Claim granted.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent was head tenant / Parties signed renting agreement / Applicant had physical altercation with Respondent’s partner / Respondent was not willing to allow Applicant to return to property / Applicant obtained the intervention of the Police who obliged Respondent to return Applicant’s possessions / Applicant did not remove his possessions from his room until a month later /  To pay rent while room was unable to be let to someone else Respondent kept Applicant’s bond of $570.00 / Applicant claimed for return of bond payment subject to renting agreement / Whether either party breached contract / If so, what if any damages or compensation was payable / Held: Applicant not entitled to refund of his bond because it was used to pay for unpaid rent / If the Applicant had taken his possessions away earlier then the bond would almost certainly have been refundable / Applicant’s personal circumstances did not make any difference to his obligation to pay …

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Respondent completed building report for Applicant / Applicant claimed they relied on report for  conditional purchase of property / Applicant subsequently discovered issues with property not identified in the report / Applicant claimed $20,000 from Respondent for repair expenses / Respondent denied liability / Respondent claimed he completed a visual and non-invasive inspection and reported on relevant matters / Held: Respondent did not fail to take reasonable care and skill / Respondent did not fail to provide services which are fit for purpose / Applicant not entitled to any remedy / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant entered contract with Respondent to purchase house and land package / Shortly after settlement Respondent noticed cracks appearing on front path and driveway  / The cracks expanded / Respondent assured Applicant this was normal, recommended applying glue to the cracks / Applicant engaged specialist assessment / Applicant claims $4312.50 for remedial repairs and $90.00 for the Tribunal filing fee / Held: Respondent is in breach of sections 362I and 362Q of the Act / Respondent liable to pay claimed remedial costs / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay Applicant $4312.50. Tribunal fee not able to be awarded.

Nuisance / Respondent installed a sump on Applicant’s neighbouring property using a large digger / Applicant claims the digger caused significant vibrations that shook her house and caused cracking / Applicant claims for repairs for the damage / Held: not proven that the damage was caused by the Respondent / No evidence prevented to suggest damage caused by Respondent / Claim dismissed