Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Negligence / Land Transport Act 1998 / Parties’ cars collided / Respondent stated she indicated left instead of right before colliding with the Applicant / Applicant sought $2,360.67 for car repair costs / Held: Respondent did not provide sufficient time to alert fellow drivers of her intentions / Respondent liable for resulting damage / Damage consistent with description of collision / Claimed repair costs reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay $2,360.67 to Applicant’s insurer / Applicant’s insurer ordered to refund Applicant’s $1,000 insurance excess / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased a new car from Respondent / Applicant unhappy with several aspects of purchase, including delay between paying deposit and final purchase, charge for ceramic coating, representation that car would have mobile phone app and temperature control when it did not, and failure of surround camera resulting in an accident and insurance claim / Applicant sought $27,030.00 from Respondent for losses and costs / Applicant also claimed he suffered emotional stress as a result of his dealings with Respondent / Held: claims regarding delay and ceramic coating not proven / Applicant accepted absence of mobile phone app before contract was finalised / Respondent did misrepresent ability to programme car’s temperature / Car was not of acceptable quality / Camera was faulty but this did not cause accident / Issues with car was loss of amenity for which Applicant should be compensated / Applicant unable t…

Jurisdiction / Applicants were Respondent’s former parents-in-law / Applicants’ son had a child from previous relationship who regularly visited his and Respondent’s house / Applicants gave their grandchild a cellphone to use without Respondent’s knowledge, and a teddy bear to keep at home of Respondent and Applicants’ son / Applicants’ son and Respondent separated / Respondent disposed of the cellphone and teddy bear / Applicants claimed $2,738.95 for phone, teddy bear and damages for injury to feelings / Held: no jurisdiction to hear claim for teddy bear and injury to feelings, because Applicants did not own teddy bear / Respondent offered to pay $200 for the phone, which was a fair sum / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $200 / Balance of claim struck out.

Rehearing / Applicant applied for a rehearing / Applicant claimed causation was not raised in earlier hearings / Held: no reason to order rehearing / Rehearing not an opportunity to perfect a case when evidence was available to a party during the initial hearing, but was not brought to the referee’s attention / Earlier order stands / Rehearing claim declined.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought vehicle from Respondent / Applicant noticed bad vibration once vehicle was driving over 70kph / Vehicle failed WOF  / Applicant claimed $1,964.75 for repair costs / Held: Respondent misrepresented condition of vehicle when he stated it was in good mechanical condition / Applicant induced to purchasing vehicle as a result of misrepresentation / Applicant entitled to compensation / Respondent ordered to pay $1,964.75 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant was driving down highway when she lost control and crashed, causing damage to her vehicle / Accident occurred on a section of highway that had recently been resealed by Respondent’s contractor / Applicant claimed there was an excessive amount of loose chip on the road, and that Respondent failed to warn her to slow down by showing a reduced speed sign / Applicant claimed $6,995.00 compensation for replacement cost of her car, salvage, storage and alternative travel from the accident / Held: accident did not occur due to negligent actions of the Respondent / Respondent had taken all reasonable steps to remove loose chip off road and had appropriate signage warning motorists of loose chip / Loose chip sign gave Applicant notice of temporary hazard which meant she should immediately slow down / Accident likely caused by Applicant failing to slow down and drive carefully across the loose chip / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant was a flatmate of the Respondents / Applicant paid a bond of $800 / When Applicant moved out, Respondents withheld the bond claiming the Applicant’s cat had damaged the sofa / Applicant claimed for bond refund and overpaid rent / Respondents counterclaimed for compensation for repair costs of the sofa / Held: claim that the cat caused damage to the sofa was not supported by evidence / Rent was found to be overpaid by seven days / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $1040, bond and overpaid rent / Claim granted and counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Real Estate Agents Act 2008 / Respondent entered into a Sole Agency agreement (SAA) for sale of a property with co-owner and Applicant, a real estate agency / Sale and Purchase agreement (SPA) entered into between Respondent, co-owner and potential buyer conditioned upon sale of buyer’s property / Buyer unable to sell their property so SPA fell through / Respondent subsequently purchased property from co-owner in a private sale / Then Respondent entered into a SAA with another real estate company and sold property to same potential buyer / Applicant claimed they are entitled to a commission from sale due to a clause in SAA agreement / Held: wording of clause excludes the sale as it was not private agreement / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) 2004 / Parties were involved in road collision / Applicant’s vehicle was a write-off / Applicant and insurer claimed $26,361.95, comprising $33,000 pre-accident value of car, $793.50 towing and salvage costs, less $7,383.25 sale price of wreck / Held: Respondent caused collision / All evidence suggested Respondent’s vehicle crossed centre line and hit Applicant’s vehicle / Costs claimed were reasonable / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $26,361.95 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant claimed Respondent and his insurer were liable for repair costs / Respondent and his insurer claimed Applicant's driving contributed to or caused collision / Held: Respondent breached the duty of care he owed as a driver to other road users / Applicant's driving did not contribute to collision / Respondent's insurer ordered to pay Applicant's insurer $4,679.06 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent booked three night stay at Applicant’s beach house / Tariff was $245 per night for two people, with an additional $70 per person per night payable for more than two people / Applicant claimed Respondent booked for two people only / CCTV footage showed three cars at the property and six people / Applicant claimed $840 for additional per person charge for booking plus $600 cleaning costs and other related charges / Held: Applicant misrepresented number of guests / Applicant also had a dog at premises contrary to terms and conditions / Claimed cleaning costs assessed as being too high / Respondent ordered to pay $980.00, being $840 for extra guests, $100 for additional cleaning and $40 compensation for damaged towel / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Respondent hit Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $834.00 / Applicant claimed officer failed to submit costs incurred in time for the court to consider / Applicant did not collect $834.00 / Applicant claimed $10,260.00 for written off vehicle, storage and towing costs, phone repair costs, compensation for days off work due to injury, courtesy car costs, child picking/dropping costs, and filing fee reimbursement / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / Respondent was negligent as he failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle and caused collision / Respondent liable for cost of reasonable losses suffered by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,995.92 for vehicle written off, storage and towing charges / Claim allowed in part.

Damages / Dog Control Act 1986 / Applicant’s car damaged while parked in driveway / Car's camera recorded damage caused by Respondent’s dog / Applicant noticed similar damage to his other car, although this damage was not caught on camera / Applicant and insurer claimed $10,237.93 from Respondent / Respondent accepted liability for damage to first car, but disputed liability for damage to second car / Held: evidence showed similar damage to both cars, occurring around the same time / Would be unlikely coincidence if cars had been similarly damaged by two different dogs around the same time / More likely than not that Respondent’s dog caused damage to second car / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $10,237.93 / Claim allowed.