Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract Law / Franchise Law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant entered into a franchise cleaning agreement with Respondent / Applicant subsequently cancelled the agreement and sought a refund for the money paid for the business because of lack of cleaning job opportunities / Applicant claimed a refund for the money paid for the franchise business due to misrepresentation by Respondent / Held: Respondent misrepresented the period for promised turnover and the effect of the turnover guarantee / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $18,000 by 25 July 2024.

Guarantee / Property Law Act 2007 / Respondent provided accounting services to a company from 2015 to 2022 / Applicant is a director of the company / Respondent sent company invoices between 2016 and 2022 which were not paid in full / Outstanding invoices paid in May 2024 / Respondent claims Applicant as guarantor owes interest and collection costs due to late payment / Held: the guarantee was valid and covered the payment of fees and collection costs but not any interest payable by the company / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $287.50 in collections costs under the guarantee.

Trespass / Applicant parked her vehicle in parking area / Respondent had authority to tow vehicles in parks leased by two businesses / Applicant admitted parking in the carpark but denied particular park was leased by relevant business and therefore Respondent was not legally entitled to tow her vehicle / Applicant sought repayment of towing fee paid to release her vehicle / Respondent provided evidence park was leased by relevant business and Respondent was authorised to tow the vehicle / Whether Applicant was given sufficient notice of park being subject to tow restrictions and whether amount claimed to release her vehicle was reasonable / Held: Applicant was given adequate notice of restrictions on use of the carpark and Applicant breached those terms / Respondent entitled to tow Applicant’s vehicle / Absence of evidence that Respondent’s $420.00 charge to release Applicant’s vehicle was unreasonable / Claim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Contract / Applicant laid concrete supplied by the Respondent on a driveway of a property development / The bottom half was much darker than the top half / The bottom half was supplied by the Respondent / Applicant claimed there was no black oxide or very little in the concrete for the concrete for the bottom half supplied by the Respondent / Applicant sought a refund of the price it paid the Respondent for the concrete ($5,146.22) plus interest (6% current bank rate at the time) /  Respondent claimed they were not told the concrete ordered needed to match with the concrete already there or they would have told the Applicant to use the top half supplier / Held: Applicant failed to prove their version of events was on balance more likely than the Respondent’s version / Of particular note was the Respondent’s evidence regarding different suppliers and that they were not aware they needed to match concrete / Respondent not liable for the difference in colour of concrete / C…

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted by Respondent for construction services / Respondent accepted Applicant's quote / Disagreement between Applicant and Respondent / Respondent decided to get a different builder to complete work / Respondent deducted $1,739.16 from final payment due to Applicant / Applicant claimed payment / Held: Applicant had not proven fencing work met guarantee as to fitness of a particular purpose / Respondent entitled to deduct amount paid to the other builder from Applicant's final invoice / No amount payable to Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Education / Consumers Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant enrolled son with Respondent for extra English tuition /  Applicant believed that programme was inadequate and did not prepare son for exams / Son failed mock exams / Applicant claimed refund for fees paid / Held: services provided must be provided with reasonable skill and care / Goods or service must be fit for purpose / No evidence to conclude Respondent’s classes were not in accordance with curriculum / Number of reasons why son could have failed / Claim dismissed.

Damage / Vehicle collision / Parties were involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent deliberately rammed his vehicle into a barrier / Applicant sought compensation for value of his vehicle, which was written off / Held: more likely than not that Respondent was driver of vehicle / Respondent deliberately rammed Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent liable for resulting damage and loss / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $9,957.00, $1,200 of which was to be paid to Applicant for excess / Claim allowed.

Nuisance / Applicants lived next to a new development / Applicants were concerned with sunlight reflecting off the roof into their house / Applicants claimed $15,000.00 in nuisance for harm to their health, visual pollution and a potential reduction in property value / Applicants also sought that the Respondents reclad/overclad part of the development’s roof with non-reflective roofing materials / Held: nuisance confined to situations where there was property damage, loss or injury / Applicants did not allege any physical property loss or damage / Applicants claim solely concerned the impact on their personal health, the visual impact and a ‘potential’ economic loss which might arise / Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim / Noted that reduction in property value fell within definition of property damage/loss / However, no substantive evidence was produced, only speculation / Claim struck out

Contract / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent owned neighbouring properties with a hedge on properties' boundary / Respondent extensively cut back hedge / Applicant asked Respondent to stop cutting hedge / Applicant claimed $1518 for hiring people to remove and dispose of part of hedge left overhanging Applicant's property / Held: agreement between parties meant Respondent could trim hedge but Respondent had breached contract by extensively cutting hedge / Texts between parties showed clear reference to recent past where top of hedge was only trimmed / Agreement between parties about boundary hedge unaffected by Fencing Act requirements / Part of loss incurred by Applicant was result of them asking Respondent to stop cutting hedge causing it to fall into Applicant's property / Respondent ordered to pay $759 to Applicant, half of amount Applicant claimed / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Interest on Money Claims Act 2016 / Applicant booked accommodation run by Respondent / Respondent later cancelled booking / Applicant had to find alternative accommodation / Applicant claimed $29,302.90 for additional accommodation and travel expenses, hearing costs, interest and $23,000.00 for stress and inconvenience / Respondent counterclaimed $1,960.00 for time responding to claim / Held: mistake on Respondent’s part when he accepted booking / Respondent did not intend to mislead or deceive / Respondent failed to take reasonable care and skill / Applicant’s additional accommodation ($155.70) and travel ($309.70) costs were reasonably foreseeable consequential losses / Applicant suffered loss of enjoyment of not having holiday in intended location / $1,000.00 awarded for loss of enjoyment / Claims for costs not available / Interest not awarded / Respondent ordered to pay $1,465.40 / Claim allowed in part / Counterclai…

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant carried out a house move for Respondent / Applicant sent Respondent an invoice for $4,541.01 / Respondent did not pay invoice / Applicant claimed $5,200.00 for original invoice plus interest / Respondent claimed she was told the move would only take three hours and she should not have to pay for more than that / Respondent sought to set off the value of damage she claimed Applicant caused to a mirror and a light / Held: parties disputed phone conversation details regarding how long the move would take / Emails between the parties made it clear the move would be charged on an hourly rate and Respondent agreed to that in writing / Respondent liable to pay the invoiced $4,531.01 / Respondent entitled to compensation of $432.04 for broken mirror / Insufficient evidence that Applicant damaged the light / Not appropriate to award in interest / Respondent ordered to pay $4,098.97, invoiced amount less compensation for broken light / …

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant stayed at a hotel operated by the Respondent / Applicant ordered a vegetarian omelette / Applicant was alarmed to discover there was bacon in the omelette, as she was a strict vegetarian / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 in compensation for the failure to provide her with food as ordered and for the distress and harm she suffered / Respondent accepted human error resulted in the wrong food being supplied to the Applicant / Respondent believed it had met its legal responsibilities for compensation, as it waivered a range of account charges for the Applicant/ Held: services were not supplied with reasonable care and skill / Acknowledged that the Respondent’s failure was confronting and distressing for the Applicant / No evidence of widespread failure with the Respondent’s food quality or compliance systems / Appeared to be an isolated incident caused by human error / Respondent offered reasonable compensation with full refund of failed…