Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent own adjoining properties / Proposal to build fence between properties but disagreement as to location / Held: fence should be erected on boundary line defined by surveying company / Applicant to pay for removal of hedge / Respondent to contribute half quoted cost of fence

Contract / GST / Costs / Respondent engaged Applicant through Barrister to complete a valuation for insurance purposes / Applicant made error in billing Respondent leaving balance owing / Applicant sought payment from Respondent of outstanding amount / Respondent claimed Applicant stated balance owed would be written off / Alternatively Respondent did not have to pay because Respondent was GST exempt / Held: Respondent bound through barrister for all work done by Respondent / Held: Applicant entitled to claim for missed invoice / Held: Respondent not exempt from paying GST / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $2051.28 to Applicant

Contract / Quasi-contract  / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 (DTA) / Equitable jurisdiction / Entitlement to relief / Applicant entered into contract with Respondent to purchase a section subject to subdivision / Agreement included a sunset clause / Prior to settlement Applicant cleared area of trees on property / Respondents cancelled contract based on sunset clause / Applicants claimed $4,140 from Respondents in relation to tree removal / Disputes Tribunal had jurisdiction over dispute as it concerned contract not recovery of an interest in land or question of title to land / Held: Applicants not entitled to reimbursement under contract / Agreement between parties did not provide for oral variations or reimbursement for acts taken in reliance of contract / Quasi-contract does not apply, no remedy available to Applicants under this claim / Respondents not unduly enriched by the felling of the trees / Applicants cannot claim relief under an equitable jurisdiction in the Disputes Tribunal / …

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Parties shared an adjourning boundary / Respondents erected new fence and sought half the costs pursuant to a fencing notice / Applicants did not seek removal of fence / Applicants wanted the fence height reduced and a mirror installed / Whether valid fencing notice issued / Whether the fence should be lowered, or a mirror installed / Held: Notice issued by Respondents was not valid / Notice did not provide a costs estimate or specify the consequences of failure to work / Also notice would lapse if work did not take place within 90 days / Work took place after expiry of notice period / Tribunal has no power to order a mirror installed / Fence height permitted by Council so height reduction request could not be granted / Claims dismissed

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a jetski from Respondent / Applicant did not test run jetski prior to purchase / Applicant took jetski out on the water after sale and found it was faulty / Applicant advised fault would have existed at point of sale / Applicant advised fault due to lack of regular servicing / Applicant sought refund of $6,000.00 purchase price / Whether misrepresentation made in sale of jetski / Whether Applicant was entitled to sum claimed / Held: Respondent provided limited representations relating to the condition of the jetski / Respondent disclosed lack of use and servicing of the jetski / No misrepresentation made in the sale / No entitlement for damages for faulty jetski / Claim dismissed

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased property from Respondents  / Applicant claims $30,000 for losses suffered due to problems with the property’s rangehood, gas regulator, and maintenance of windows and roof / Respondents deny any liability for loss suffered / Held: breach of clause 7.2 of the sale and purchase agreement that chattels delivered in reasonable working order / Rangehood was not in reasonable working order at settlement / Failure due to ongoing issue of build-up of grease in venting / Held: no breach of sale and purchase agreement clause 7.2 regarding the gas regulator / Regulator failed after settlement / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the maintenance of the house including windows / Evidence supplied at time of sale indicates property had been maintained / Held: Applicant unable to prove misrepresentation regarding the state of the roof / Respondents did not make unqualified s…

Civil procedure / ss 14 and 15 of the Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicants contracted with Respondent for harvesting of two blocks of trees / Applicants lodged claim against Respondent in the Disputes Tribunal for loss of value in trees left to deteriorate on site / Applicants lodged second claim against Respondent in the Dispute Tribunal in relation to same contract for refund for construction of road / Held: s 15 applies where a cause of action is divided “for the purpose” of bringing a claim within the Dispute Tribunal’s jurisdiction / prior and current proceedings flow from the same set of circumstances and as a result encompass the same cause of action / Trustees divided cause of action into 2 or more claims in contravention of s 15 / claim struck out.

Licences / Licence to Occupy / Applicants had a Licence to Occupy bach on Respondents land / Applicants wanted to sell Licence to third party / Respondents approved on basis that they took the profit on the sale / Applicants claim return of $20,000 less $50 legal costs / Held: no express provision in Licence requiring Applicants to pay Respondents any part of the sum they receive / Outcome: Claim allowed / Respondent to pay Applicant $19,950 in three annual payments of $5,000 and one of $4,950.

Contract / Consumer protection / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicants engaged Respondent to paint their house, and made payments totalling $6,900.00 / Respondent only completed part of the work / Applicants claim Respondent misrepresented himself and breached the contract by not completing the work / Applicants claim $6,900.00, plus filing costs of $90.00 / Held: Respondent made a misleading representation by using the trademarked term ‘Master Painter’ on his business card / Respondent’s refusal to complete the work amounted to a repudiation of the contract / Applicants were entitled to cancel the contract (s 36 CCLA) and claim relief (s 43 CCLA) / Benefit Applicants received from the part performance of the contract totalled $4,807.07 / Claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay $2,092.93.

Negligence / Respondent collided with power pole owned by Applicant, forcing its replacement / Applicant sought compensation of $17,658.17 / Held: loss described by Applicant is reasonable in the circumstances / Applicant awarded its damages claim in full / claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Private sale of a second-hand car / After purchasing the vehicle the Applicant discovered the gear box needed replacing / Applicant claimed the Respondent made misrepresentations about the condition of the car / Applicant also claimed the Respondent made a mispresentation that the car ran well / Whether there was a misrepresentation by the Respondent that induced the Applicant into purchasing the car / If so, what remedy was appropriate / Held: Applicant was unable to show on the balance of probabilities that there were misrepresentations regarding the condition of the vehicle / Statement that the car ran well was a misrepresentation supported by evidence / The misrepresentation induced the Applicant into the contract and to buying the vehicle / Applicant purchased a second-hand vehicle and would have anticipated some ongoing service and maintenance /  $1,000.00 considered to represent a fair contribution to repairs by the Respondent / …

Contract / Applicants entered share milking contract with Respondents as trustees of ABC trust / Respondents terminated contract / Final milk contract payment made to trustees in place of Applicants / Applicants claimed $16,456.38 plus GST and interest in relation to final milk contract payment and filing fee / Held: contract stipulates that on termination Applicants receive Contract Payment for any unpaid milk contract payment without deduction or withholding any amount and Trustees have no right to set off in relation to payment / Applicants entitled to Contractor Payment which Respondents withheld / Trustees acted in breach of contract by not paying final Contractor Payment to the Applicants / Trustees not entitled to deduct costs claimed from the final Contractor Payment / Claim allowed / Respondents ordered to pay $17,336.99 to the Applicants

Consumer rights / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Respondent purchased digital surveillance system from Applicant / Respondent has not paid for system / System sends false alerts / Intruder alerts unable to be turned on and off when camera system is turned on and off / Applicant claims payment for system / Respondent counterclaims seeking declaration that he is not liable and is entitled to reject system / Held: system not sufficiently free from defects / Respondent made functionality he sought clear and system not reasonably fit for this purpose / Applicant went to considerable lengths to rectify system / Respondent made clear he wanted to cancel arrangement in February 2020, purchase has been cancelled since then / Respondent has received little marginal benefit from use of system since cancellation / Respondent filed claim in timely manner / Little or no depreciation in hard drive from delay / Outcome: Respondent to keep cameras purchased with system to mitigate his loss / Respondent…