Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Disputes Tribunal Act / Applicant purchased property from Respondent’s / Applicant considers work was carried out without obtaining the requisite consent / Applicant claims $3956.00 representing surveying costs and architectural draughting costs / Respondent counter claims for $2,304.50 against the Applicant in respect of legal costs incurred / Held: on balance of probabilities a building consent was obtained for the erection of the original deck / No consent was required for the deck upgrade/repair carried out / Respondent not in breach of warranty under sale and purchase agreement / Legal costs do not fall within the category of costs the Tribunal has jurisdiction to award / Claim dismissed, counter claim dismissed.  

Contract / Respondent agreed to update Applicant’s website / Applicant claimed work was not done in a timely manner and work done did not justify hours Respondent spent / Applicant cancelled contact and sought a refund of $15,000.00 / Applicant also claimed refund of $270.95 for e-commerce Theme which they paid for separately which was the wrong Theme / Whether Respondent breached contract entitling the Applicant to cancel / If so, whether Applicant was entitled to refund / Whether Respondent was entitled to refund for Theme / Held: not proven that Respondent was not doing work was contracted to do / Claim in relation to refund dismissed / Respondent confirmed that it ordered wrong Theme and Applicant paid for it / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant $270.95 / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought a pony from Respondent for her daughter / Pony had a substantial bucking habit which was not able to be resolved / Applicant claimed refund of the purchase price and costs associated with transport and upkeep of pony / Respondent claimed that the Applicant waited too long after purchase to raise concerns, was advised of pony’s tendency to buck, had caused an escalation of issue by delaying remedial work, had not viewed the horse or explained purpose pony was sought / Held: pony was misdescribed in advertisement / Pony was not of acceptable quality per Consumer Guarantees Act 1993  / Applicant entitled to reject the pony and get a refund / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $5,000.00 / Respondent to arrange collection of pony / Ownership of the pony re-vested in Respondent

Contract / Applicant provided incorrect labels for Respondent’s lubricant product that could impact Respondent’s business / Respondent refused the incorrect labels / Applicant claimed $1,434.05 compensation / Held: Respondent 40% responsible and liable for $456.78 / Applicant was primarily responsible / Respondent did let the label through its review process

Property / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicants wanted to bring land dispute matter to Disputes Tribunal / Held: Disputes Tribunal has no jurisdiction to make orders under the Property Law Act / If parties wanted to further pursue their claim they must file proceedings in the District Court / Claim struck out for want of jurisdiction

Contract / Quasi-contract / Parties were previously in an relationship /  Respondent used Applicant’s online account to purchase a phone plus insurance without her permission / Applicant claimed the total charge of $1,714.95 plus her filing fee from the Respondent / Applicant undertaken to pay the balance of the money owing to the phone provider once payment for phone is made / Whether the Respondent used the Applicant’s account to purchase the phone / Whether the Respondent was legally obliged to reimburse the Applicant / Held: evidence suggested that Respondent accessed the Applicant’s account to purchase a phone together with insurance / Respondent said phone provider had compelled her to make payments for the phone / Unconscionable for the Respondent to retain this benefit without payment / Respondent obliged under law of quasi-contract to reimburse the Applicant for the full amount of the charges to her account / Applicant cannot recover Tribunal filing fee in this instance / Resp…

Contract / Respondent invited Applicant to join an advisory board for their company / No formal contract / Applicant claims Respondent agreed to pay for advisory board work and additional consulting work, and at the same daily rate / Held: lack of agreed terms, genuine misunderstanding about intentions / Consulting work outside of role of advisory board member and there was clear instruction to carry it out / Claim allowed for advisory board work and quantum meruit claim awarded for consulting work / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,408.64.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Pooling of water at rear of property / Water not draining away from retaining wall effectively / Applicant claims damages to remedy drainage problem / Held: No jurisdiction to hear claim against second respondent / Absence of connection between draining provision and cesspits represents a breach of warranties contained in the Building Act 2004 / First respondent to pay damages to applicant / Claim against first respondent allowed / Claim against second respondent struck out

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased horse from Respondent in private sale / shortly after purchase horse displayed signs of lameness / Applicant advised by veterinary horse had arthritis in proximal intertarsal joint / Applicant claimed horse had arthritis at time of sale and was misrepresented by Respondent / Applicant claimed refund and vet bill costs required to diagnose horse with arthritis / Held: at time of sale it would not have been possible for signs of arthritis to be present based on evidence from two veterinarians / Respondent advised Applicant at time of sale that horse had history of OCD and could develop arthritis / Respondent did not misrepresent horse and held honest opinion on knowledge at time of sale / Claim dismissed

Negligence / Animal Law Reform Act 1989 / Respondent’s bull was out of its paddock causing collision that resulted in the total loss of the applicant’s ute / Applicant claimed the value of the ute plus the Tribunal filing fee / Held: evidence relating to reasons the fencing may have been compromised at the time is insufficient to prove negligence on respondent’s part / Respondent has no liability for applicant’s reasonable losses and the claim is dismissed

Tort / Conversion / Damages / Land Transport Rule Operator Licencing 2017 / Respondent towed Applicant’s car after crash / Applicant disputed towing and storage fee on the basis tow was not authorised / Respondent sold Applicant’s car with personal property inside / Applicant claimed for loss of car and belongings, inconvenience and mental health injury / Held: Respondent not legally permitted to tow Applicant’s vehicle / Signature and details of enforcment officer not recorded as required by r 5.9 Land Transport Rule Operator Licencing 2017 / Applicant not obliged to pay for towing and storage, no right to detain car until charges paid / No contractual or legal basis for charges or lien / Sale of goods without Applicant’s concent amounted to conversion / Respondent ordered to pay $4,068.00 to applicant for wrongful detention and conversion / Claim allowed

Payment of debt / Applicants seeking refund for double-glazed windows and ranch sliders / Windows not suitable for property as they open inwards / Held: company to pay sum of $15,000.00 to the Applicants and collect window and door joinery within 14 days of payment / Substantial failure / Lack of fitness for purpose and failure to ensure the Applicants were aware of the nature of the product.

Contract / Applicant took out vehicle insurance with Respondent / Applicant claims told commercial vehicles covered under policy / Hybrid battery in Applicant’s vehicle failed / Respondent denied coverage as vehicle was used for taxi / Applicant claims cost of new battery, two year warranty, and costs for removal and diagnosis of old battery / Held: Applicant entitled to rely on undertaking that vehicle covered under policy / Held: policy covers failure of hybrid battery / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $3,039.05 to Applicant