Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant's insurer claimed $13,614.39 / Held: Respondent responsible for collision / Costs claimed by Applicant were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $13,614.39 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant contracted Respondent to provide property management services / Applicant alleged Respondent breached contract, claimed compensation for 28 days of lost rent plus repair costs / Held: Respondent was Applicant’s agent and allowed to make decisions about tenancy on Applicant’s behalf / Respondent did not sign up six occupants for new tenancy, error regarding number of occupants had been brought to Applicant’s attention / Respondent did not breach contract by increasing rent or signing tenants onto periodic tenancy / Respondent did allow departing tenants to leave without serving out notice, but Applicant would not have suffered loss if she did not cancel prospective tenants / Respondent not entitled to retain $549.98 in rent paid by previous tenant to cover advertising and letting fee, as they had told Applicant they would waive right to those amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $549.98 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Parties were flatmates / Respondent as head tenant asked Applicant to leave the flat and have room professionally cleaned due to drug use / Applicant vacated property but failed to have room cleaned / Applicant claimed for return of $721 bond / Respondent counterclaimed for costs of having Applicant’s room cleaned and for security cameras purchased in response to threats allegedly made by Applicant / Held: implied agreement between parties that if Applicant used drugs inside the property, they were required to pay for professional cleaning to remove drug residue / Applicant not liable for cost of security cameras / Applicant required to pay $531.30 for cleaning, entitled to remaining $189.70 of bond / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $189.70 / Claim and counterclaim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought spa from Respondent / Spa motor failed and Respondent refused to remedy problem / Applicant claimed $1,798 from Respondent / Held: supplier of Applicant's spa most likely Respondent, who was operating business at the time / Applicant does not have a contract with new business owner / Spa not of acceptable quality / Applicant entitled to payment of costs to fix problem with spa / Respondent should be given an opportunity to remedy fault in spa /  Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $378 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had transmission issues while the  Respondent was driving / Repairs were carried out on vehicle / Parties unable to resolve matter / Applicant sought $3000 for repair costs / Held: Respondent did not misrepresent condition of vehicle / Even if the Respondent had misrepresented the car's condition not satisfied that the Applicant was induced to purchase the car by any misrepresentation/ Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out Weathertightness Report on property in order to satisfy Applicant’s bank / Applicant paid $920.00 for inspection and report / Bank requested photographs of moisture meter readings / Respondent offered to take photographs for further $200 plus GST / Applicant engaged another inspector to provide information / Applicant claimed Respondent’s report not fit for particular purpose and Respondent failed to provide its service with reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed refund of $736.00, being 80 percent of price paid / Held: Report fit for purpose / Service provided with reasonable care and skill / Photographs not usually required / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $11,000 / Two days later, warning lights came on and vehicle went into limp mode / Applicant took car to mechanic for diagnostics run, full service, warrant of fitness and post-purchase check and was charged $3,768.16 / Applicant claimed Respondent knew of vehicle’s faults and misrepresented vehicle / Applicant claimed $14,199.52, which included mechanic costs ($3,768.16), transport costs while car was at mechanic ($34.98), Tribunal costs ($216.37), and general damages for emotional stress and financial strain ($10,000) / Held: Respondent misrepresented car had been recently serviced and the registration light bulb replaced / Insufficient evidence to support Applicant’s other claims / Appropriate for Respondent to pay for service and replacement bulb, plus Applicant’s transport costs / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $650 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out accounting work / Respondent gave cost estimate and Applicant paid deposit / Respondent sent first invoice of $4976.68 / Applicant was shocked by cost, so terminated the work / Work was almost complete at time of termination, so Respondent sent report and invoiced $4306.97 for remainder of work / Applicant had paid $5400.00 towards invoiced amounts / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability for balance of $3883.65 / Respondent counterclaimed for payment of the balance $3883.65 plus debt collection costs of $2323.07 / Held: Applicant signed a letter of engagement and Respondent carried out the work / Work provided was in line with cost estimate / Applicant ordered to pay balance of $3883.65 and $885.57 of debt collection costs / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim partially granted.

Contract / Applicant sold a property to Respondent / Respondent negotiated price reduction due to asbestos in the building / After settlement, Applicant found that Respondent was in negotiation with another party to sell the property / Remedial work for asbestos had not been carried out / Applicant claimed he should be reimbursed as he agreed to lower selling price on basis that remedial work would be carried out / Held: not unusual for prices to be reduced due to state of a property / Agreement between parties was for price reduction as asbestos would be costly to remove / Neither the negotiation nor the agreement required Respondent to remove asbestos / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Applicant’s and Respondent’s cars collided while going around a roundabout / Applicant’s car was hit from the rear / Applicant and his insurer claimed for $1,484.75, $1,326.05 for cost of repairs and $158.70 for rental costs / Respondent admitted liability for damages but disagreed with amount / Held: repairs costs were supported by evidence and approved by insurance assessor / Respondent liable in negligence to pay Applicant $1, 484.75 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent / Car had significant mechanical problems / Applicant said Respondent misrepresented condition of car / Applicant would like to cancel agreement and claimed for refund and servicing costs / Respondent said he sold car in good faith / Held: insufficient evidence to show that a misrepresentation has been made / No compelling evidence that Respondent knew there was something wrong with the car / Claim dismissed.

Insurance / Applicant and Respondent were formerly in a relationship / Respondent took Applicant’s car from her property / Respondent later charged with theft / Applicant and her insurer claimed for value of vehicle and its contents / Respondent claimed he was owner of vehicle so did not steal it  / Held: vehicle belonged to Applicant and was taken unlawfully from her by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $15,896.78, loss assessed from value of car and possessions and associated costs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Respondent had collided with Applicant’s vehicle / Applicant claimed Respondent was responsible for the collision as he must have been speeding / Applicant claimed Respondent should not have passed her on the left while she was making left hand turn / Applicant claimed $2,408.46 for damages / Held: no evidence that the Respondent was speeding / Applicant was bound to give way to any other vehicle when turning / Applicant was responsible for the collision / Claim dismissed.