Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondent to carry out a pre purchase inspection on a property she wished to bid on at auction / Applicant capped her bidding at $950,000.00 based on the report / Applicant claimed Respondent did not identify water damage which caused structural issues / Applicant claimed $30,000.00 for cost of remedial building work, report cost, and damages for emotional harm / Held: Respondent failed to show reasonable care and skill / Applicant's claim failed as loss was not proven as resulting from Respondent's failure / Applicant not suffered a loss as she lowered her bid based on the report / Claim for damages for emotional harm also failed / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours with a shared driveway / Respondent had a pile of scoria that was uncontained / Applicants property flooded on three occasions during storms as a result of debri washed down from the Respondents property / Applicant claimed $235.75 for costs of clearing the drain and $514.94 for two days' lost income / Held: Respondent was liable for part of the drain blockage but there were other contributory factors / Unreasonable for Respondent to compensate for two days' income / Respondent ordered to pay $493.22, drainlayer cost and half the amount claimed for loss of income / Claim granted in part.

Jurisdiction / Applicant was the Respondent’s employer under an employer immigration scheme /  Applicant sought reimbursement of money he claimed he paid for immigration services on Respondent’s behalf / Respondent denied any money was paid on his behalf / Held: situation arose from a employment relationship / Employment Relations Authority had exclusive jurisdiction to determine such disputes / Claim struck out.

Tort / Negligence / Contributory Negligence Act 1947 / Limitation Act 2010 / Respondent crashed Applicant’s vehicle into a lamppost / Respondent held a learner’s licence and was not accompanied by a sober driver who had held a full licence for at least two years / Respondent was not insured and Applicant’s insurer declined claim for damage / Applicant claimed $5,700 / Held: Respondent caused damage to Applicant’s vehicle / Respondent should be held liable for actions of anyone else in the vehicle given she was driving outside the conditions of her licence / Applicant contributorily negligent for allowing Respondent to drive his car / Applicant and Respondent share the loss equally / Limitation defence not available to Respondent / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,850 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent owned neighbouring properties / Parties made verbal agreement about laying a new power cable / Parties agreed they would share cost of laying cable / Applicant paid invoices after completion of work and invoiced Respondent half of it / Applicant claimed $18,972.55 / Respondent counter-claimed $30,000.00 / Held: parties had a binding agreement they would share the cost equally and work was carried out satisfactorily / Respondent had not paid his share / Respondent not entitled for compensation when Applicant disabled cable for one year / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $18,972.55 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought laptop from Respondent / Before purchasing, Applicant advised Respondent that she needed a very large core or gaming system with top-of-the-line graphics / Applicant experienced issues with laptop crashing / Applicant claimed laptop not fit for purpose and sought refund / Held: laptop not fit for purpose / Applicant can return laptop and get refund / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $2,999 / Applicant ordered to return laptop to Respondent / Claim allowed.

Contract / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant contracted Respondent to manage his rental property / Applicant became aware that services were not being carried out pursuant to the contract / Applicant discovered maintenance and repair services were carried out by a fictitious entity created by Respondent / Respondent did not carry out inspections, repairs or lodge bond money as required / Applicant incurred numerous costs as a result / Applicant sought $25,524.32 for a partial refund of management fees and damages for multiple breaches of contract / Held: Respondent repeatedly breached the contract by failing to carry out the services it was contracted to provide / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $10,350.85 and additional damages of $4,720.82 for breaches, totalling $15,071.67 / Claim granted in part.

Consumer Law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased flights and insurance from Respondent / Applicant suffered stroke while travelling and had to extend stay and pay for additional flights / Respondent declined insurance cover due to undisclosed pre-existing medical condition / Applicant claimed Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Applicant claimed $21,095.98, being $10,514.44 medical expenses, $4,437.29 additional accommodation, $2,348.80 flights and $3,794.55 for accommodation / Held: Applicant failed to establish Respondent engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct or failed to exercise reasonable care and skill / Applicant did not disclose existing medical condition / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant sold nut business to Respondent / Sale and purchase contract contemplated that current contracts with third party growers could be assigned to the new owner of the business / Some unprocessed nuts left on premises when business were sold / Applicant claimed in their capacity as grower that Respondent is liable for unprocessed nuts / Applicant claimed $2,697.07 from Respondent / Held: evidence provided by Applicant insufficient to determine whether there were unprocessed nuts left by Applicant at the time / Claim dismissed.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant owned land near Respondent / Fence running along Respondent’s side damaged / Applicant claimed Respondent destroyed fence on boundary line / Applicant claimed $10,000.00 compensation / Held: fence did not separate lands of adjoining occupiers / Fence on reserve land or Respondent’s property / Fence not owned by Applicant / Any maintenance by Applicant of fence was for own benefit and cannot reasonably be seen as conferring ownership / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased car from Respondent for $41,000.00 / Applicant claimed Respondent misled him as to cause of noise in car’s engine / Respondent told Applicant problem had been identified by mechanic as brake pads needing replacement, and supplied invoice to support diagnosis / Later turned out issue was with transfer box, a much more expensive repair / Applicant provided evidence that Respondent had manipulated invoice from mechanic / Applicant claimed cost of repairs and Tribunal fee / Held: Respondent induced Applicant to enter contract by misleading him as to the nature of the fault and cost of repair / Applicant entitled to $11,603.00 repair costs / Tribunal fee cannot be awarded / Claim allowed.

Building / Applicant contracted with Respondent for supply and installation of a window / Respondent engaged a building contractor to install window / Asbestos was found throughout the house / Applicant claimed $34,082.90 against Respondents / Held: building contractor did not act with reasonable care and skill when installing window / Respondent responsible for subcontractor’s work / Applicant failed to establish asbestos found resulted from installation of window / Applicant sought compensation above what was needed to put him in a position if the contract was not breached / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $800.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant contracted Respondent to replace headlight bulb and rear interior bulbs in car / Headlight bulb did not match colour of existing headlight / Applicant’s car later failed warrant of fitness and a warning light on dashboard also came on / Applicant claimed $2,300.00 being $583.05 for replacement headlights, refund of $172.80 originally paid and remainder to investigate and repair warning light / Held: Respondent failed to carry out work with reasonable case and skill by installing different colour headlight / No evidence that warning light directly linked to work done by Respondent / Applicant prevented Respondent from remedying failure by refusing to bring vehicle back for replacement / Applicant not entitled to cancel contract and obtain refund or claim cost of repairs incurred elsewhere / Claim dismissed.