Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant’s legal services / Respondent failed to pay Applicant’s $5,836.37 invoice / Applicant claimed $7,762.27 comprising invoice, $817.41 interest, and $1,108.49 for debt recovery / Held: Respondent was contractually bound to pay invoice / Contract included clause that 12% interest would be payable on overdue accounts, therefore Respondent also liable for interest / Debt recovery costs not recoverable in this instance / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,653.78 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $3,800 / Respondent represented vehicle as being in great condition with no major issues / Transmission issues arose soon after purchase, mechanic advised Applicant repairs would cost $2,000–$3,000 / Applicant decided to sell car, explained fault in advertisement, received $1,800 / Applicant claimed $2,000 for loss suffered in sale, $120 for mechanics report, $90 for filing fee / Held: Respondent misrepresented vehicle, appeared to have deliberately concealed fault / Applicant entitled to compensation for losses suffered, but circumstances not met for costs award / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,120 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondent engaged Applicant’s recruitment services, Applicant supplied carpenter / Respondent failed to pay number of Applicant’s invoices / Respondent complained carpenter damaged a door, invoiced Applicant $845.79 for damage / Applicant deducted $467.79 from final invoice for damage, but balance of $2,257.71 remained unpaid along with older invoices / Applicant engaged debt collector, Respondent paid older invoices but not final invoice / Applicant claimed for outstanding invoice plus interest and collection costs / Held: contract stated Applicant not liable for damage caused by workers, Respondent not entitled to have any further amount waived for damaged door / Contract provided for 15% interest plus collection costs for overdue debts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,098.74, being outstanding invoice, $141.03 interest, and $700 collection costs / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondent to plaster rooms for $6,694.35 / Applicants unhappy with quality of work / Applicant had work assessed by a qualified plaster, who performed remedial work / Applicants claimed $3,900.00 for partial refund and $400 for extra sealant needed for remedial work / Held: plastering work not provided with reasonable care and skill / Failure was of substantial character / Applicants entitled to a full refund / Applicants considered full refund would be punitive and only claimed partial refund of $3,500.00 / Respondent ordered to pay $3,900.00, partial refund and cost of sealant / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent engaged Applicant’s recruitment services / Respondent agreed to hire candidate referred by Applicant as temp worker, candidate would be employed by Applicant / Respondent failed to pay Applicant’s last five invoices / Applicant claimed $14,000.97 in outstanding invoices / Respondent counter-claimed $30,000 in damages for losses sustained due to candidate’s actions or omissions, alleged Applicant misrepresented candidate’s abilities / Held: Respondent was not induced to engage candidate by any misleading conduct from Applicant / Respondent contractually obliged to pay Applicant’s invoices regardless of issues with candidate’s work / Contract excluded liability for losses arising from candidate’s performance / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,000.97 / Claim allowed, counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Insurance / Bailment / Carriage / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunals Act 1988 / Applicant engaged Respondent’s moving and storage services / Following tornado at storage facility, Respondent advised Applicant her goods looked fine / Storage container found to have split, allowing moisture to enter, significantly damaging Applicant’s goods / Applicant claimed $27,732.59 for losses / Held: Respondent liable through both bailment and Consumer Guarantees Act for failure to protect Applicant’s goods / Damage occurred due to Respondent’s incorrect conclusion about container’s weathertightness / Applicant’s loss assessed as $16,808.50 / Applicant liable for $2,380.00 outstanding invoice / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $14,428.50 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant agreed to assist with de-stocking animals at a farm / Respondent concerned about welfare of the farm owner’s stock / Applicant made an agreement with farmer to assist with de-stocking and improvement of remainder of stock / Applicant made agreement on the understanding he would receive commission on the sale of the animals / Applicant performed destocking tasks / Respondent requested stock numbers to be reduced further / Respondent employed another as a stock agent / Sale of animal proceeds were paid to the farmer / Applicant claimed compensation on ground that Respondent deprived him of income he was going to receive per agreement with farmer / Held: Applicant did not have a contract with Respondent about sale of stock / Applicant had a contract with farmer / Respondent was not unjustly enriched at Applicant’s expense / No arguable basis for award of compensation / Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s claim / Claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant entered sale and purchase agreement and building contract with Respondent / Delays pushed completion and settlement dates further than agreed / Applicant claimed damages for inordinate delay, being rental during additional time, storage costs, and tiling costs as concreting delays prevented tiler from starting / Held: much of delay due to unusual market conditions at time of build, outside Respondent’s control / Delay was inordinate, but insufficient evidence to place figure on how much of delay was unreasonable and unavoidable / Respondent liable only for tiling delay, as concreting not completed in time for tiler’s work, resulting in $873.83 cost increase / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $873.83 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased a new build property from Respondent / Prior to settlement, several defectives were identified by Applicants in a list / Settlement went ahead before defects were remedied / Applicants requested defects be remedied again / Following hearings, defectives were remedied / Applicants advised there was a defect in the laundry tub which had developed rust / Respondent denied liability for tub as not notified earlier on list / Applicant claimed tub was covered by warranties / Applicant sought replacement tub / Held: Applicants provided evidence they notified Respondent of defective tub / Respondent liable to replace defective laundry tub / Respondent ordered to pay $1,737.60 to replace and install tub / Claim allowed.

Contract / Respondents purchased products and services from Applicant valued at $11,817.52 / Applicant claimed $10,684.41 from Respondents for overdue invoices / Respondents claimed they paid lower sum as originally quoted plus ten percent extra as good will gesture / Respondents disputed owing any further sum / Held: quotation provided by Applicant clearly stated it was only valid for 30 days  / As Respondent purchased the goods outside of the 30 days, quoted price no longer applied / Respondents ordered to pay Applicant $10,684.41 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Negligent misstatement / Contract / Resource Management Act 1991 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant claimed $29,949 for costs incurred in pursuing resource consent subdivision application / Respondent claimed $7,549.21 for fees and disbursements incurred in processing Applicant’s application / Held: Tribunal’s jurisdiction in tort limited to claims involving physical damage to property / Monetary loss is not property damage / No jurisdiction to hear Applicant’s monetary claim / Relationship between parties arose under Resource Management Act, not contract / Tribunal has no jurisdiction under RMA, therefore no jurisdiction in relation to Applicant’s declaration of non-liability or Respondent’s monetary claim / Claim and counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law 2017 / Applicant engaged Respondent to conduct a telemarking campaign for its interior design business / Applicant paid $805 deposit / Applicant later paid invoices of $221.60 and $810.75 for databases of leads to be used in the campaign / Campaign delayed for various reasons / Applicant sought refund of $1,837.35 / Held: Applicant entitled to cancel contract due to unreasonable delay / Applicant did not receive any value from contract / Full refund should be paid / Respondent ordered to pay $1,837.35 / Claim allowed.