Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant’s neighbours sold property to Respondent / Respondent removed garage and did not fill resulting gap in fencing / Applicants temporarily patched fence to comply with privacy and safety requirements relating to their pool  / Disagreement relating to type of fencing and boundary / Applicant served notice under Fencing Act / Respondent served cross notice / Applicants seek order that respondent contribute to cost of fence to be erected between properties, as well as orders relating to nature, cost and location of fence / Held: Respondent to contribute to cost of new fence / Applicant’s entitled to an iron fence along or close to line of previous fence / Claim allowed, Respondent to contribute half of cost of materials

Contract / Claim relates to damage caused by Respondent to a vehicle owned by Applicant / Cheque was received and was not returned by the Respondent in the applicable timeframe  / Dispute arose as to the reasonable and necessary cost of repair / Held: Agreement was reached in December 2019 and no longer open to Applicant to claim further on this dispute / Claim dismissed

Negligence / Respondent approached Applicant about removing plants on the boundary of their properties / No fence to delineate boundary / Applicant had no objections to proposed work as claimed work was all on Respondent’s side / Respondent’s contractors removed a mature tree from Respondent’s property / Respondent claimed $1500.00 for the tree / Held: Respondent gave inadequate instructions and supervision to her contractors that amounted to negligence / Respondent liable to pay $665.00 for new tree and compensation / Claim granted.

Contract / Agreement to purchase a puppy / Applicant paid $500.00 deposit to Respondent / Respondent withdrew offer for puppy / Respondent claimed deposit was non-refundable / Applicant claimed $5,000.00 for deposit and costs associated with travelling to visit the puppy and finding another / No breach of contract / Respondent cannot rely on contractual terms of a contract she has cancelled / Respondent was able to recover any losses by selling puppy to another person / Respondent must return deposit to Applicant / Other costs or losses not recoverable / Claim allowed in part / Respondent to pay Applicant $500.00.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Fencing Act 1987 / Limitation Act 2010 / Respondents removed a shed on boundary between their and Applicants' properties leaving a concrete foundation / Boundary fence was damaged when concrete left exposed / Applicant removed concrete and erected new boundary fence / Applicant issued fencing notice / Respondents issued counternotice disagreeing with style of fence / Applicant claims $3,630.50 from Respondents in costs to remove concrete and erect boundary fence / Held: claim in breach of contract accrues from when shed removed and foundations left exposed / Length of time from when action accrued greater than six years / Claim barred by statue / Outcome: Respondents not liable for costs / Claim dismissed

Cross-lease / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours in a cross-lease property made up of one building divided into two flats / Terms of the cross-lease require each unit to pay half the cost of repairs and maintenance of the building, including the roof / Applicant considers Respondent has not kept up responsibilities under terms of cross-lease / Applicant claims Respondent’s roof needs to be repaired and repainted, exterior walls of flat repainted to original colour and shared fence to be painted / Held: terms of cross-lease require roof to be repaired and repainted / Held: requirement of “high standard” in terms of cross-lease do not apply to fence, no obligation on Respondent to contribute to painting it / Respondent entitled to paint exterior walls of their flat / Respondent ordered to repair roof and arrange painting with Applicant / Respondent to also repaint small shared external wall area.

Contract / Section 28 of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent contracted with Applicant cover band to play at their wedding / Song list was discussed shortly before wedding / Respondents were unhappy with the style of many songs and Applicant was unable to learn new songs under short notice / Respondents cancelled contract and refused to pay cancellation fee due to lack of communication about song list / Held: Applicant failed to communicate regarding song choice with reasonable care and skill, and misled the Respondents about limits of its ability to perform requested songs / Applicant’s failures of communication were not sufficiently serious to justify cancellation of the contract (s 43, FTA 1986) / Damages reflect shared responsibility for Respondent’s invalid cancellation of contract and Applicant’s breaches of the CGA and FTA / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $900.00

Conveyancing / Consumer Guarantees Act 1983 / Duty of reasonable care and skill / Applicant engaged Respondent to provide conveyancing services for a property purchase / Applicant claims losses related to delay in moving into the property due to advice of Respondent / Respondent counter claims for time spent on post settlement matters and Tribunal attendance / Held: advice to Applicant regarding vendor having 7 days to take care of issues with property amounts to a failure of reasonable care and skill / Advice regarding 7 day period was inaccurate / Respondent not settling before 4pm amounts to failure of reasonable care and skill leading to losses for Applicant / Claim allowed / Respondent ordered to pay $393.00 to Applicant

Property / cross lease / Fencing Act 1978 / fence between exclusive area and common area / entitlement to park in common area / enforcement of requirement not to park in the common area / claim for compensation / Held: entitled to have a fence as no term in the lease preventing this / respondents not entitled to park in the common area / Tribunal not able to make order preventing long term parking / claim for compensation dismissed as not supported by evidence

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant contacted his Respondent neighbour about building a fence between their properties / Notice included details about the fence and an indication that the Respondents would be liable for a contribution to the fencing costs of $945.56 / Respondent replied to Applicant that he thought the existing fence was adequate / Parties failed to reach an agreement / Applicant stated he was concerned his animals would escape on to the Respondent’s property / Applicant commenced work on fence / Fence was completed and the Applicant attempted to recover fence costs from the Respondent / Whether the respondent was liable for a contribution to the fence costs / If so, whether the Applicant was entitled to claim $945.59 / Held: on the balance of probabilities, fence was not adequate / However, differences between the Applicant and the Respondent were not resolved when the Applicant chose to replace the fence / Fence did not require immediate work /  Respondent was no…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant sent a computer using a courier service / Respondent said the postal service was under a contract with another party / Following collection and before the item arrived at intended destination a redirection request was made / Computer never arrived at first destination or redirected address / Applicant unable to collect computer from depot due to Covid 19 restrictions /  Computer sent to redirected address but never arrived / Respondent said no ability to locate computer due to nature of contract with other party / Applicant claimed never given an option to pay for posting once the parcel was located at the depot or told there was anything irregular with tracking of the package / Applicant claimed $635.00 for costs of computer plus filing fee / No contract between parties and no liability at law from Respondent to Applicant for loss of computer / Applicant took a risk sending the parcel / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Companies Act 1993 / Applicant claims $27,252.00 from Respondent for commissions owed at time of liquidation / Held: Disputes Tribunal does not have jurisdiction for matters under the Companies Act 1993 or in equity / claim dismissed

Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant invested money in a terms deposit with a company where Respondents were directors / Company went into receivership then liquidation / Applicant claims employee’s of company engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct / Applicant claims directors should be respondible for the actions of their company and their employees under s 43 of the Fair Trading Act / Applicant did not have personal dealings with Respondents and claim is not caught under s 43 / No general liability on directors for actions or conduct of their company / Claim dismissed