Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Land Use Agreement / Fee dispute / Respondent used transmitting equipment installed on land owned by Applicant / Parties entered into land use agreement in 2018 that provided Applicant payment for installation / Dispute over sum owed to Applicant / Respondent stopped using site / Applicant claims for usage of land dating back to 2010 / Respondent disputes sum owed on basis it should only pay for 2017 and 2018 / Held: Respondent owes Applicant $1368.50 under the agreement for 2017 and 2018 / Fee amount based on email offer from company / Held: agreement applies to years 2010-2016 / Agreement states it applies from 2010 onwards / Price to be applied for 2010-2016 is $476.00 based on one user fee over seven years / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay 1844.50 to Applicant

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Agency / Respondents owned land which was subject to a right-of-way used by several neighbours, including Applicants / Slip on right of way caused damage needing repair / Agreement reached for paymment of repair work, but dispute subsequently arose / Applicants seek to recover payment made to contractor directly / Respondent claims agreement not binding, signed under duress, agent had no authority to sign / Held: Respondent not misled, pressure insufficient to amount to duress / Respondent bound by settlement agreement / Held: Respondent created appearance of authority to represent other party / Both Responsdents bound by agreement / Claim allowed, Respondents ordered to pay Applicants $9,033.79

Trespass to goods / Detention of goods / Applicant vehicle was clamped by Respondent / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee as she was only parked and away from her vehicle briefly / Respondent claims vehicle clamped because it did not display visitor’s permit and it has authority to clamp or tow unauthorised vehicles at the site / Held: no damages suffered by landowner before Applicant returned to vehicle after around one minute / Reasonable to expect that a few minutes would be allowed to obtain permit or make enquiries about permit / Held: Respondent not entitled to clamp Applicant’s car / Claim allowed / Respondent order to refund $150 to Applicant.

Contract / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Ongoing repayments due to Council under a programme attached to property rates / Applicant stated this obligation to pay was not disclosed to him or included as condition / Applicant claimed sum from Respondent, being amount owing to Council at settlement / Whether the programme information disclosed to Applicant prior to contract being formed / Whether Respondent breached vendor’s warranties / Held: Council programme information was disclosed in writing prior to contract being formed / No breach of warranty because there were no arrears at settlement / Respondent not in breach of vendor’s warranty as repayments were disclosed / Respondent had no liability to pay damages to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondent contracted for Applicant to drill and install three anchors for a block wall / Three anchors were installed / One anchor failed a load test / Parties agreed a fourth hole would be drilled / Before work completed Respondent cancelled contract / Applicant sought payment for work completed / Respondent counter claimed for cost of labour, materials and work done by another contractor / Held: Applicant did not undertake the work for which he charged with reasonable skill and care / Respondent had right to cancel the contract on the grounds of breach of an essential term / Cancellation not effective until Applicant was advised 14 September after work on fourth anchor / Respondent liable to pay for part of the work on the fourth anchor / Claim allowed / Respondent to pay $785.60 to Applicant .        

Tort / Conversion / Applicant engaged Respondent to move furniture / Dispute arose over payment / Respondent took bedframe and mattress as cover for payment without Applicant’s agreement / Applicant claims Respondent converted bedframe and mattress / Applicant claims $1810.00 being the purchase price of bedframe and mattress or alternatively return of goods / Held: Respondent converted bedframe and mattress / Respondent had no right to goods and removed them from Applicant’s property without her knowledge or permission / Held: Respondent to pay $905.00 to Applicant or alternatively to return bedframe and mattress / Amount ordered accounts for depreciation / Claim upheld

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants purchased splashback from Respondent via Trademe / Applicants claim splashback does not correspond with description given in advertisements / Applicants claim $690.00 refund / Held: splashback did not correspond with description / Held: Respondent to pay Applicants $690.00 / Held: Respondent to collect splashback at own expense / 48 hours notice required for collection / claim upheld

Contract / Respondent installed air conditioning unit for Applicant / Applicant disputed installation with Respondent through Electrical Workers Registration Board and Disputes Tribunal / Applicant completed remedial work on air conditioning unit / Applicant claimed $2,500.00 for remedial work / Whether or not connection at the air conditioning unit was installed in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications was a new cause of action / Held: no new cause of action / Had Applicant taken necessary steps it could have been raised in previous hearings / claim dismissed.

Negligence / Employee of Respondent reversed work truck into power pole / Power pole was destroyed / Applicant was owner of pole and claimed reimbursement of sum paid to replace pole / Respondent conceded liablity for damage / Whether Applicant entitled to recover full replacement cost or whether deduction can be made for betterment / Held: evidence does not show Applicant gained any benefit from replacing pole / No basis for deduction for betterment / Respondent ordered to pay full replacement cost of $6,525.24 to Applicant / claim allowed.

Contract / Insurance policy / Applicant’s car was stolen /  Respondent denied claim stating Applicant has not made a “prima facie” case that car was stolen and onus on Applicant to prove valid claim exists / Respondent claims Applicant did not provide information relating to stolen car or information provided was fraudulent / Applicant claims she acted in accordance with policy / Held: Applicant established a prima facie claim / Applicant complied with conditions of the claim / Tribunal not satisfied Respondent established Applicant provided incorrect or incomplete information supporting her claim / Tribunal not satisfied Respondent established Applicant provided fraudulent information in support of claim / Held: no evidence Applicant committed fraud / Respondent not entitled to decline claim / Tribunal satisfied sum insured $19,800 set by Respondent / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $19,800.

Trespass to goods / Applicant visited Embassy and parked in neighbouring property’s exclusive parking space / Respondent clamped Applicant’s car / Applicant claims refund of $150 release fee and $45 filing fee / Respondent does not dispute it clamped Applicant’s car so trespass of goods established / Issue whether clear warning car could be clamped if parked in space in question / Held: signs did not provide sufficient warning whether visitors to Embassy could park there / Held: Respondent unable to establish defence to action / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to refund Applicant fee for clamping car  / Filing fee cannot be recovered by Applicant per s 43 of the Disputes Tribunals Act 1988

Contract / Commercial leases / Property Law Act 2007 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Respondents leased commercial property / Respondents did not exercise right of renew after expiry of initial term but continued to occupy the premises and pay rent / Applicant bought interest in premises in March 2017 / Respondents initially continued to pay rent but reduced payments from mid-April 2017 / Applicants claim $15,000 in rent and outgoings to 31 May 2018 / Respondents obligations to pay rent continued after the statutory tenancy after the initial term expired per s 210 of the PLA / Applicants entitled to enforce all covenants of the lease against the Respondents per s 233 of the PLA / Held: rent was $29,500 plus GST, Applicant’s entitled to received $5,500 plus GST per year in outgoings in addition to weekly rent payments / Claim allowed / Respondents must pay $15,000 to Applicant