Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Rehearing/ Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant brought a claim against Respondent / Claim was dismissed as Applicant failed to attend the hearing / Applicant applied for a rehearing / Applicant claimed numerous personal reasons for not attending hearing / Held: explanation for failure to attend was insufficient / Applicant merely forgot about the hearing / Rehearing declined.

Property / Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours and share two boundaries / Lower boundary recently fenced by agreement and Applicant wished to fence the driveway boundary / Applicant claimed $4,599.96 which is half the cost of the quoted works outlined in Fencing Act notice / Held: there is no existing adequate fence on the boundary / Parties contribute in equal shares to the construction of an adequate fence / Tribunal has no power to order that fence cannot be built on driveway boundary / Side-by-side palings adequate to be installed / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,079.54 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Parties own adjoining units / Applicant’s unit suffered flooding through the roof leaking down internal wall and causing damage / Applicants claimed Respondents were negligent in not keeping their roof clean causing the Applicant’s roof to flood / Applicants claimed compensation of $8,288.14 / Held: while Respondents breached its duty of care owed to Applicant by failing to keep its roof clean, on evidence, it is not possible to find the damage caused was directly due to the failure of Respondents to keep its roof clean / Claim dismissed.

Negligence /  Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out an assessment of his ducted heating system / Respondent's tradesperson inspected system gaining access through manhole in Applicant's spare bedroom / Applicant discovered carpet in spare bedroom was wet underfoot / Applicant found screw junction between two pipes was lose and water leaked from junction / Applicant claimed compensation for loss / Held: Respondent acted with reasonable care in entering the roof cavity / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants contracted with Respondent to have a shower installed for $3,910.00 / Shower came with 5-year warranty / After 3 years, Applicants noticed that shower tray had developed cracks / Applicants contacted Respondent for a remedy / Respondent stated that shower tray issue was not covered by warranty / Respondent stated he had advised during installation that the bathroom floor was in an unsuitable condition for the shower to be installed, but Applicants insisted that the installation proceed / Respondent said warranty was voided due to the state of the floor / Applicants sought $4,212.84, representing a quote to install a new shower tray / Held: Respondent installed shower tray with reasonable care and skill / Shower tray was fit for purpose / Warranty was voided / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant signed contract with Respondent for work on development project / Applicant paid $5750.00 deposit / Work agreed to commence when Applicant's funding was approved / Applicant not able to obtain funding / Applicant claimed refund of deposit / Held: written contract did not refer to deposit being non-refundable / No disadvantage of cost to Respondent when project was cancelled / Respondent liable to refund $5750.00 deposit / Claim granted.

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Parties involved in road collision when Respondent tried to move into lane in which Applicant was travelling / Both vehicles were damaged / Applicant and his insurer claimed $2,858.19 from Respondent for cost of repairs to Applicant’s ute / Held: Respondent failed to give way and moved from his lane without due care / Respondent breached duty as driver to take care not to harm anyone else’s property, and was responsible for damage caused / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $2,858.19 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent occupied room in Applicant’s house as a boarder / Agreed Respondent would clean his own bedroom and bathroom / Around time Respondent was moving out, Applicant entered room and found carpet substantially destroyed by carpet moths / Applicant said carpet and walls were covered in moths, cocoons and eggs / Applicant obtained quote for replacing carpet of $1,255.00, spent $67.96 on chemicals to treat room, and engaged cleaners for $230.00 to fumigate house / Applicant claimed Respondent responsible for damage as he had neither kept room clean nor taken action when infestation appeared / Held: damage caused by Respondent’s failure to clean carpet as he was obliged to do under parties’ agreement / Applicant had no choice but to replace carpet / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,552.96 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought laptop from Respondent for $3,064.75 with a three-year extended warranty / Screen failed after warranty expired / Respondent declined to provide remedy because warranty had expired / Applicant considered laptop should have lasted seven years / Applicant claimed for compensation / Held: laptop cannot be regarded as reasonably durable / Laptop did not comply with consumer guarantee of acceptable quality / Respondent ordered to pay $1,751.28, calculated on estimated expected life of laptop / Claim allowed.

Damages / Contract / Applicant claimed Respondent damaged Applicant’s soundbar while at her home as a guest / Applicant claimed she had a contractual agreement with Respondent not to touch the soundbar, TV or remotes / Respondent denied liability / Applicant sought $629 for cost of a new soundbar and TV specialist service / Held: insufficient evidence to prove Respondent caused damage / No evidence of contractual agreement, which in any event would be an unenforceable promise / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant’s wife took her car to the Respondent to repair a chip in her car windscreen / Applicant’s wife was quoted $100 to repair the chip / When the Respondent was repairing the windscreen it cracked / Applicant’s wife was advised that she would need to replace the windscreen and was quoted $1,022.00 / Respondent claimed they advised there was no guarantee the chip repair would be successful and a windscreen replacement would be necessary if the chip cracked / Applicant sought $1,090 in compensation to replace the windscreen / Held: Respondent took reasonable precautions when attempting to repair windscreen / Applicant’s wife was advised that the chip repair might not work / Respondent did reasonably disclose the consequences of a repair failing prior to the start of the procedure / Service provided by Respondent was reasonable / Respondent took all precautions and informed the Applicant’s wife appropriately / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Contract / Duress / Respondent managed Applicant’s rental property / Applicant alleged Respondent acted negligently by giving her poor advice, resulting in loss of three weeks and one day’s rent / Applicant also alleged she agreed to an early exit for the tenants under duress / Applicant claimed $2495.36 / Held: after Applicant attended property without notice, tenant threatened to bring claim to Tenancy Tribunal / Respondent’s advice to endeavour to mitigate damages through early termination, rather than face potential consequences in the Tenancy Tribunal, was fair and reasonable, not poor advice / Applicant did not agree to early exit under duress / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent crashed his vehicle into large cantilever gate at entrance of Applicant’s premises / Respondent had been at a car meet and did a burnout / Respondent saw police arriving and drove away to avoid getting in trouble / It was dark and raining and Respondent didn’t see Applicant’s gates / Applicant and its insurer claimed $17,402.66 as contribution to repair costs / Held: Applicant’s gates were there to be seen / Respondent breached duty of care as a driver by hitting gates and causing damage, and was responsible for repair cost / From Respondent’s evidence it appeared he was most likely distracted by looking in rear view mirror to check if police were following him / Repair costs were reasonable / Despite repair, gate was not back to standard it was prior to damage / Respondent lucky Applicant did not insist on full replacement / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $17,402.66 / Claim allowed.