Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Jurisdiction / Applicant claimed penalties and legal costs arising from non-payment of body corporate levies / Held: Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear matters relating to body corporate levies as they are “money due under an enactment” (Unit Titles Act) / s 11(7) Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / fact that new claim is for penalties and legal costs do not bring it into jurisdiction because the original cause of action is still the same / claim struck out.

Contract / Sale of Goods Act 1908 (SGA), Contractual Remedies Act 1979 (CRA) and Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) / Applicant purchased a tractor from Respondent on a trading website / Applicant did not inspect tractor before purchase but relied on advertisement and photo / before purchase, Respondent’s employee reported that the tractor was in “very tidy condition” and carried out its 1200-hour service as it had not been done / on delivery, Applicant noticed various faults and problems with the tractor and claimed damages for breach of contract / Held: Applicant had relied on Respondent’s representations and was induced to enter into the contract by them / hydraulics were not functioning properly at time of delivery thus Respondent’s representation was incorrect and amounted to misrepresentation / 1200-hour service was not carried out in a proper and workmanlike manner / description in the advertisement were misrepresentations under s 6(1) CRA and s 13(a) FTA / damage for indicators, armre…

Negligence / Dog Control Act 1996 / sheep owned by Applicant were attacked by dogs, and Respondent’s father accepted their dogs were responsible for the attack / ten days later, another incident occurred and more sheep were attacked and killed / Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a claim in tort for damage or injury to property, including stock / dog owner may be liable under ordinary common law principles of negligence or s 63(1) of the Dog Control Act 1996 / a dog owner is strictly liable for the damage caused by their dog / Held: Respondent’s dogs injured Applicant’s stock / Respondent to pay $6,511.14 for destroyed stock and vet invoices.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased computer from Respondent / computer failed 4 times within 8 weeks / Respondent admits responsibility for one failure, but submits other failures caused by Applicant / Applicant seeks to cancel contract and receive refund of $610.00, including $52.17 for data transfer / Respondent willing to repair computer at no cost, but not to provide refund / while CGA states supplier must be given opportunity to repair goods, the test is reasonableness / 4 failures in 8 weeks renders computer’s failures of a substantial character / Applicant entitled under CGA to reject goods, request refund / entitled to refund of data transfer as of no value without computer / Respondent’s evidence that Applicant’s use caused failures generally, unclear / Respondent liable in terms of its contract and under CGA to refund Applicant / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $610.00

Contract / oral contract / Respondent had not paid for six taxi rides over a two-year period / verbal contract existed / term that Respondent would pay for taxi and if he did not there would be fees and collection costs added / Respondent failed to pay outstanding fare and associated charges / breach of contract established / Applicant entitled to the recover cost of the fares, “reasonable” account fees and collection costs / Disputes Tribunal filing fee only recoverable in “exceptional circumstances” as set out in the Disputes Tribunal Act / claim for filing fee failed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to restore his car and agreed on a price of $20,000 / Applicant collected the repaired and repainted car to have it certified but failed on 9 issues / noted that repairs were very poorly done and not to a tradesman standard / $9,884.25 of further repairs were necessary to bring it up to certification standard / Applicant claimed that sum from Respondent / Held: Respondent was in breach of contract and the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / failed to perform the work to an acceptable standard and did not remedy them when notified / Applicant was entitled to have the failure remedied elsewhere / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $9,884.25.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 and Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / Applicant contracted with Respondent to move possessions at “owner’s risk”, which included two glass fish tanks, one which cracked on arrival at the destination / Applicant claimed compensation under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Held: Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 does not apply as claims for loss or damage to these goods falls under Carriage of Goods Act 1979 / contract clearly stated that carriage was at owner’s risk and no compensation would be paid for any loss or damage / claim dismissed.

Tort / Personal Property Securities Act 1999 / conversion / WY and QY took out loan and security agreement with Applicants / Security interest (SI) created in respect of two vehicles registered in the NZ Personal Property Securities Register by the Applicant / Respondent purchased vehicle subject to SI / WY and QY failed to make repayments, Applicant sought to repossess vehicle in Respondent’s possession / Respondent refuses to release vehicle / Applicant makes claim for $6,806.27 being amount owed on the loan and security agreement / Held: Applicant has a registered SI enforceable against a third party (the Respondent) who may claim rights in the vehicle thus Applicant is entitled to repossess the vehicle from Respondent / Respondent is liable for tort of conversion / on the evidence, Respondent had intention to deprive Applicant of its rights of possession to the vehicle / Applicant entitled to damages / Applicant suffered loss as a result of conversion as it was unable to recover th…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Second Respondent operates a mortgage and insurance broking business and arranged contents insurance for First Applicant who had two properties / extreme weather event flooded Property A damaging most of First Applicant’s belongings / insurer declined cover because policy was only for Property B / Applicants claimed that they were wrongly informed that both properties were covered and cancelled existing insurance in reliance on this advice / Held: there can be no claim against First Respondent as it is a separate legal entity from Second Respondent and thus no legal relationship existed / Second Respondent’s evidence inconsistent with statement in his email therefore found to have told First Applicant that contents would be covered at both properties / Second Respondent breached guarantee as to reasonable care and skill under Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / claim allowed, Second Respondent ordered to p…

Tort / negligence / multiple nose-to-tail collision in queue of cars caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed costs from sale of damaged vehicle, which are significantly lower than assessed repair costs / Tribunal finds Second Respondent failed to stop in time causing first collision on Applicant’s car / this then caused First Respondent to hit Second Respondent’s car causing second collision / Tribunal held both respondents liable for the claim / First Respondent liable for 40 per cent of claim; second respondent liable for 60 per cent / claim allowed – First Respondent and Second Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $3,979.38 and $5,969.07, respectively.

Contract / bailment / Respondent agreed to sell the Applicant’s militaria collection and was to take 20 per cent commission on sales / Respondent had sold only two groups of items when the Respondent’s van was burgled / Applicant claimed for value of lost items, and parties agreed to extend the Tribunal’s monetary jurisdiction to hear the matter / Held: As bailee, the Respondent owed Applicant a duty of care to look after the goods, and has the onus of establishing that he did look after them / Respondent failed to establish he took due care with the Applicant’s goods, and took unnecessary risks by transporting the goods to fairs rather than leaving them in storage / the fact the Applicant took nearly six years to file the claim made it hard for the Respondent to produce evidence to show it had taken due care, therefore loss was shared on the balance of the goods / Respondent to pay Applicant $14,436.00.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / guarantee as to reasonable care and skill / Applicants parked their car at Respondent’s car park at the airport while they were overseas / on return they were not picked up by Respondent’s free shuttle / Applicants made attempts to contact Respondent and visited its premises but was not able to gain access to their vehicle / Applicants claimed for the cost of taxi and accommodation / Held: Respondent’s service was not carried out with reasonable care and skill / shuttle transfer was an inherent part of the overall service / shuttle service was not available to Applicants and it was reasonable that they booked into hotel after their attempts / claim allowed, Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $305.53.

Tort / Dog Control Act 1996 / Respondents walking dog at same time as Applicants / two dogs embroiled in fight / Applicant had struck Respondent’s dog repeatedly on the head with a rock to get Respondent’s dog to drop their dog from its mouth / Both dogs required medical treatment, however, Applicant’s dog was put to sleep / Applicant’s claim the sum paid for their dog’s medical treatment / Respondents counter-claimed for their dog’s medical treatment and loss of stud fee / On the evidence, it was more likely that Respondent’s dog had been the aggressor / If the Respondent had control of their dog at the beginning of the fight she should have been able to prevent the attack from progressing / Held that the Respondent breached s 52 of the Dog Control Act 1996 by not exercising control over their dog either at the start of, or during, the attack. Applicant is not liable for damage caused to Respondent’s dog and did not breach s 52 / Claim allowed, counter-claim dismissed / Respondent ord…