Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Tort / Conversion / Negligence / Impounding Act 1955 / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Applicant and First Respondent had neighbouring farms / Applicant operated a deer velvet breeding operation / Applicant's deer strayed unto First Respondent's farm / First Respondent ordered other Respondents to shoot the four deer that strayed on his farm / Applicant claimed $11,500 for the cost of replacing the deer / Held: insufficient evidence to prove all four of shot deer belonged to Applicant / Only two of the hinds had ear tags indicating ownership by Applicant / First Respondent solely respondent for the loss of the deer because he instructed the other Respondents to shoot them without informing them that some of the deer had ear tags / Contributory negligence defence generally not available for an intentional wrong such as conversion / Applicant did not breach duty of reasonable deer farmer by allowing his deer to escape / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $5,000 / Claim allowed in par…

Contract / Applicant booked travel on a flight with Respondent / Applicant missed Respondent’s flight due to travel delays / Applicant purchased ticket with different airline for US$559.94 / Applicant claimed cost of $559.94 airline ticket / Held: Applicant’s contract with Respondent was for the flight only / It was Applicant’s responsibility to ensure booked flights were suitable for her purposes / Applicant’s inability to get to Respondent’s flight on time was not Respondent’s fault / No breach of contract established / Applicant not entitled to compensation / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant purchased two tickets for a concert for $356.30 / Tickets were later advertised at a special price of $99.00 / Applicant claimed that when she bought the tickets she asked if they were the cheapest price available / Applicant claimed $203.30, being the difference between the price she paid and the discounted ticket price, plus filing fee / Held: no guarantee made when Applicant purchased tickets that they would be lowest price / No law prohibiting promotion of subsequent discounts for an event / Respondent did not engage in misleading or deceptive conduct / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Collision occurred in Applicant’s driveway resulting in damage to her car / Applicant stated Second Respondent was responsible as he was driving Applicant’s vehicle, which collided with a pole / First Respondent is Second Respondent’s mother / Applicant claimed for car repair costs / Held: Second Respondent admitted crashing Applicant’s vehicle / Second Respondent had attempted to drive Applicant’s car without her permission / Second Respondent’s liability established / No grounds to impose vicarious liability on First Respondent / Second Respondent ordered to pay $3,114.19 for car repairs / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Insurance law / Subrogation / Respondent collided into the rear of Applicant’s car / Applicant’s car was insured, Respondent’s car was not / Insurance company wrote off Applicant’s car / Insurer sought recovery of money from Respondent / Held: Respondent liable for damage to Applicant's car / Cost of repairs claimed by insurer are substantiated / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant’s insurer $10,299.15 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicant leased premises to Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent was liable for rent and other expenses under lease, reducing claim to Tribunal’s jurisdictional limit of $30,000 / Respondent claimed Applicant failed to provide watertight premises, unreasonably withheld consent to lease assignment / Respondent claimed Applicant liable for $82,000 damages, reduced counterclaim to $30,000 / Held: parties had negotiated a reduction of premises to make rent more affordable for Respondent / Parties did not come to agreement about new rent / Reasonable for reduction of rent in proportion to reduction of floor space / Respondent liable for $15,644.35 rent arrears / Respondent liable for $14,901.15 in other amounts owing under lease / Insufficient evidence for Respondent’s counterclaims / Respondent ordered to pay $30,000.00 / Claim allowed and counterclaim dismissed.

Consumer Law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant contracted Respondent to repair blown head cylinder / Respondent provided quote for $3,000.00 / Respondent repaired head cylinder and carried out further repairs / Respondent charged Applicant $8,668.99 for repairs / Applicant claimed for return of $4,999.00 paid for unauthorised repairs / Held: repairs not authorised / Terms of contract were to only repair head cylinder and Respondent carried out further repairs without gaining authorisation from Applicant / Consumer not liable to pay more than reasonable price for service, s 31 CGA / Respondent to pay Applicant $4,643.99, being total amount minus reasonable cost of repair / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought car from Respondent / Applicant experienced issues with car: warning light came on, emitted smoke and burning smell / Respondent refurbished battery but could not identify any other issues / Applicant unhappy with outcome and refused to collect car from Respondent / Applicant claimed refund / Held: Respondent prepared to remedy and did remedy the fault / Applicant cannot reject car and claim refund / Applicant ordered to collect vehicle / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant operated museum which needs painting / Applicant accepted quote from Respondent who is a painter / Applicant paid $6,969 deposit to Respondent / Respondent did not complete work and was uncontactable / Applicant sought deposit refund / Held: Respondent repudiated contract by making it clear through his actions that he did not intend to carry out his obligations under the contract / Applicant entitled to cancel contract / Appropriate to grant relief of full deposit refund / Applicant received no benefit from minimal work from Respondent / Applicant incurred significant inconvenience as a consequence of Respondent’s failure to perform contract / Respondent ordered to pay $6,969 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant hired car from Respondent / Respondent's business was closed on date of return / Applicant instructed to return car to petrol station in front of Respondent’s premises / Car was damaged when Respondent picked it up / Respondent deducted $2,400 for the damage from Applicant’s bank account, without informing her / Applicant claimed repayment of $2,400 as she did not cause the damage / Respondent claimed car was not returned to their premises so Applicant remained liable for damage / Held: Applicant’s return of car per Respondent’s instructions deemed as delivering car to Respondent / Damage likely caused by third party after Applicant returned car / Clause in contract allowed Respondent to deduct monies for damage without proper process for dispute resolution or investigating liability to be disregarded / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,400 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant engaged Respondent to manage his rental property while he resided overseas / Applicant became worried about Respondent’s management services, found they were not being carried out pursuant to contract / Issues included poor management of maintenance, failure to provide inspection reports, failure to monitor or remedy tenant damage and failure to lodge bonds / Applicant claimed $25,524.32 for partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract / Held: Respondent repeatedly breached contract by failing to carry out services it was contracted to provide / Reasonable for Respondent to refund for services not delivered / Applicant also entitled to damages for Respondent’s misleading and deceptive conduct / Respondent ordered to pay $10,350.85 refund and $4,720.82 damages / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged Respondents’ legal services for property purchase / Following purchase, Applicants applied to council to erect dwelling on the land / Property was in archaeologically significant area, requiring additional measures and costs for the build that Applicants did not anticipate / Applicants alleged Respondents failed to carry out due diligence / Applicants claimed $24,188.79 in costs allegedly incurred due to Respondents’ failures / Held: Respondents did not breach duty to carry out services with reasonable care and skill / Respondents reviewed purchase agreement as instructed / Respondents missed some documents sent by real estate agent, but informed Applicants, who chose to confirm purchase agreement anyway / Documents mentioned archaeological status of property, but did not indicate how extensive additional building requirements would be, therefore Respondents could not have advised about this / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant contracted by Respondent to prepare ground for fencing / Applicant claimed cost of work completed / Respondent denies liability for cost claimed and argued work was not done correctly / Held: both parties contributed to their failure to pinpoint precise location of work to be done / Respondent entitled to some deduction from sum invoiced by Applicant / Respondent approved work immediately after completion / Applicant could have completed filling work if it had been notified by Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $16,100 / Claim allowed.