Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant left his car with the Respondent to have new tyres fitted / Applicant paid $1000.00 for the tyres / Severe flooding affected location of Respondent’s workshop / Vehicles in the workshop were written off as a result of the flooding / Speed and severity of flooding took local council and emergency services by surprise / Held: Respondent could not have predicted or even suspected the flooding / Respondent had no reason to take any special precautions / Claim of negligence not established / Respondent had no legal liability to Applicant for the loss of his vehicle in the flood / Respondent negotiated a payout from its insurer based on part of its policy covering vehicles damaged while in the workshop / Respondent offered Applicant $14,000.00 as part of their insurance pay out / Respondent also agreed to refund the costs of the tyres, $1000.00 / Respondent agreed to pay Applicant $15,000.00 in total / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant engaged Respondent to sell his property / Respondent gave Applicant documents to sign / Applicant stated his understanding was marketing costs would be covered by the proceeds to sale / Respondent claimed Applicant understood marketing costs needed to be paid even if property remained unsold / Applicant sought order that he was not liable for marketing costs / Held: Respondent did not mislead the Applicant / Applicant needed to understand document they were executing / Applicant liable to pay marketing costs / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $2,445.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant sought Respondent's vehicle restoration services / Applicant claimed Respondent estimated job would cost $10,000 / Applicant paid $21,217 and job was only partially completed when he took vehicle away / Applicant also claimed Respondent caused damage to the vehicle / Held: Respondent's comment that the job was “doable” for $10,000 was inaccurate / Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care and skill in terms of costing / Applicant failed to prove Respondent caused damage to vehicle / Successful part of Applicant’s claim was that the cost of Respondent’s work was substantially beyond what Applicant expected he would have to pay / A reasonable consumer would not expect that the cost would be more than double what the skilled service provider said was doable / Applicant entitled to partial refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,417 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought campervan from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented capability of campervan to negotiate steep hills / Applicant sought to cancel contract, return campervan and have his $20,000 returned / Held: Applicant did not solely rely on Respondent's representation of vehicle but on his own experience of viewing and test driving the van when considering whether to purchase it / Applicant not induced to purchase by misrepresentation / Vehicle valued at price it sold for / Applicant not entitled to remedy / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993/ Applicant entered into an agreement with Respondent to hire their premises for her son’s 21st birthday / Applicant claimed drinks were not supplied as requested and that the bar staff closed the bar an hour earlier than agreed /  Furthermore, Applicant claimed that she is due a refund for unused bar tab funds / Applicant claimed $2,600.00 in compensation from Respondent which included $300.00 bond refund, $50.00 staff costs refund, $150.00 venue hire refund, $2,000.00 bar tab refund / Respondent denied any liability to pay compensation, as they said they had to close the bar early due to repeated prohibited behaviour by birthday-goers / Respondent also stated that their records showed the bar tab was expended on the night, apart from a small amount / Held: evidence indicated that guests were drinking in the carpark and toilets, that they were warned not to do this / Respondent was within their rights per the terms and conditions of venue hir…

Jurisdiction / Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1908 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant drove for a taxi company / Respondent was chairman of taxi organisation board / Applicant was unhappy with how the organisation was being operated / Applicant claimed Respondent was exercising more votes than allowed under the constitution, enabling him to control the organisation and benefit both in the running of his taxis and associated businesses / Applicant claimed for cost of legal expenses incurred in trying to challenge this / Held: no jurisdiction to hear claim / Applicant required to take matter up with the board / Industrial and Provident Societies Act provided it was District Court who had jurisdiction to hear such disputes, not Disputes Tribunal / Claim struck out.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased hybrid car from Respondent / Respondent said any electric vehicle fast charger could be used to charge car / Respondent showed Applicant different ways car could be charged / Posts on social media and evidence from an electric car company and a petrol station company showed fast chargers not suitable for this type of car / Applicant claimed compensation to reflect difference in cost between hybrid and petrol versions of car / Held: car was not of acceptable quality or fit for purpose at purchase and Respondents had misrepresented nature of car to Applicant / Applicant experienced loss of ability to use car as intended but could not show financial loss / Applicant entitled to be compensated for loss / Claim allowed in part.

Tort / Conversion / Applicant sold vehicle to customer / Vehicle had issues and Applicant engaged Respondent to undertake repairs / Respondent engaged third-party repairer as work was outside Respondent’s expertise / Applicant refused to pay third-party repairer’s invoice as it was not made out to Applicant / Respondent refused to allow Applicant to retrieve vehicle / Issue with invoice finally resolved, but while pickup was being arranged, wheels were stolen from vehicle / Respondent sent Applicant invoice for cost of wheel replacement plus storage costs / Applicant claimed damages of $19,895.34 being price of car plus cost of repairs paid to Respondent / Held: Respondent did not prove they had a right to retain vehicle when Applicant attempted to retrieve it / Respondent converted Applicant's vehicle / Applicant entitled to damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,080.34 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Quasi-Contract / Applicant claimed it was contracted by the Respondent to supply staff Christmas hampers / Terms of these arrangements were agreed over a series of emails, rather than a formal, signed contract / Applicant received an email from the Respondent in September 2023 confirming the 2023 hamper project was proceeding / Applicant relied on that confirmation to order goods to ensure availability for late November and December / Applicant claimed it was therefore blindsided by a November 2023 email from the Respondent advising gift hampers would not proceed / Applicant sought $28,923.72 in losses for goods it ordered in reliance on the Respondent’s email / Respondent denied liability contending no contract was made and it was therefore not responsible for loss / Held: insufficient evidence to prove elements of a contract or quasi-contract were present between the parties for compensation to be awarded / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant loaned $2,600.00 bond money for a tenancy to her son and his partner, the Respondent / When tenancy ended, landlord refunded the bond equally between Applicant’s son and Respondent / Applicant’s son paid $1,300.00 to Applicant / Applicant claimed the other $1,300.00 from Respondent / Held: no written record of the loan agreement to clarify the intended parties / Not proven that the loan was to Applicant’s son and Respondent jointly, rather than just to Applicant’s son / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant paid Respondent $20,000.00 / Applicant sought refund of payment / Respondent claimed money was a deposit on a house Respondent was going to sell to Applicant / Respondent claimed he had to sell house to another party for less because Applicant did not go through with purchase / Respondent counterclaimed $30,000.00 for loss / Held: parties did not have written agreement for sale / Even if there was an enforceable verbal contract, no evidence that a condition of verbal contract was that Applicant’s $20,000.00 was non-revokable or refundable if Applicant decided not to proceed  / Respondent would be unjustly enriched if he were to keep Applicant’s $20,000.00 / Applicant entitled to be paid back $20,000.00 as it was not a gift and not part of an enforceable term of a contract / Respondent not entitled to any other sum representing loss made by not selling to Applicant / Claim allowed / Counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant booked Respondents’ accommodation for four nights / Respondents advertised property as being in a “peaceful rural setting” / Due to road noise, Applicant only stayed for three of the four nights / Applicant claimed a refund of $780.00 for four nights’ accommodation / Applicant claimed Respondents’ advertisement was misleading / Applicant also claimed accommodation service provided was unsatisfactory regarding readiness for guests / Held: word “peaceful” in advertisement was misleading / Applicant entitled to a full refund for fourth night and a 30 percent discount for the other three nights / Accommodation had value for Applicant for the days he decided to remain there / Respondents did not provide accommodation service with reasonable care and skill / Applicant’s failure to contact Respondents regarding defects in service resulted in a loss of right to compensation / Respondents ordered to refund $351.50 /…

Contract / Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant got tattoos from the First Respondent / Applicant claimed First Respondent used expired tattoo ink and provided poor workmanship in relation to the tattoos / Applicant also claimed First Respondent told him to change his tattoo image / Applicant claimed $12,614.00 for refund, cost of tattoo removal and cost of legal advice and associated time off work / Respondent counterclaimed $4,200.00 for loss of revenue and $1200.00 for a days’ lost work as Applicant cancelled final appointment / Held: Applicant failed to prove that the ink used had expired / Evidence indicated that it was the Applicant’s decision to change the tattoo image / Applicant failed to prove that the First Respondent did not provide his service with reasonable care and skill / Neither party can claim for costs / Claim against Second Respondent struck out / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.