Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Contract / Applicants engaged Respondent to carry out pre-purchase inspection of property they subsequently purchased / Inspection identified water damage / Respondent offered quotation to address water damage / Work proceeded but there were delays / Dispute arose over delays and payment / Contract came to end before completion / Applicants claimed refund based on costs they will incur to finish contracted scope of works, repair costs to broken drainpipe and to seal cracks in driveway / Held: Respondent entitled to charge for same price as price it agreed to match / Contract came to end because of disputes / Applicants overpaid Respondent / Respondent to pay Applicant $4,999 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Property Law Act 2007 / Applicants advanced $201,000.00 to their daughter and her Respondent partner towards property purchase / Applicants' daughter and Respondent separated and property was sold / Loans paid to Applicants / Applicants stated Respondent owed them an equity share in net sale proceeds / Applicants claimed $24,000.00 being half-share of profit, $3,375.00 legal fees and $416.97 interest / Held: Applicants had an agreement with their daughter and Respondent for Applicants to receive a profit-share on property sale / Profit-share agreement was legally enforceable contract / Respondent breached profit-share agreement by not paying any share to Applicants when property was sold / Applicants entitled to receive half-share profit / Applicants' claim for interest and legal costs dismissed / Applicants entitled to receive damages / Respondent ordered to pay Applicants $25,650.00 / Claim allowed in part.

Consumer law / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant bought baby carrier from Respondent / Applicant claimed $180.00 refund as baby carrier was counterfeit / Held: representation made in advertisement that baby carrier was a genuine brand was incorrect / Respondent misrepresented baby carrier to Applicant / Applicant suffered a loss due to misrepresentation / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $180.00 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Personal liability / Applicant paid Respondent's company $21,853.22 for electrical work and materials / Respondent did not do electrical work or provide materials / Respondent's company placed in liquidation / Applicant sought refund of $21,853.22 / Held: not enough evidence to find Respondent was personal liable for his company's debt to Applicant / Director and shareholder of company not personally liable for company debts, even where only one director and shareholder / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant claimed Respondent agreed to rent house with him and a third party / Applicant claimed he had Respondent’s permission to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf, as Respondent was overseas at the time / When Respondent moved to New Zealand he chose to live elsewhere / Applicant claimed he was forced to cover Respondent’s share of rent for several months, totalling $11,800.00 / Respondent denied he ever agreed to terms of tenancy or that he gave Applicant permission to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf / Held: insufficient evidence that Respondent gave permission for Applicant to sign tenancy agreement on his behalf, or that he was aware Applicant had done so / Claim dismissed.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondents owned neighbouring properties / Respondents built fence, including retaining wall, on Applicant’s side of boundary / Fence was moved back to boundary, but retaining wall was not / Applicant sought order that retaining wall be removed at Respondents’ expense,  and that fence height be reduced to comply with council rules / Respondent counter-claimed $10,056.73 for half cost of building fence and retaining wall, and cost of moving fence / Held: wall did not need to be removed, as degree of encroachment on Applicant’s land was minimal, and it was not adversely affecting Applicant’s use and enjoyment of its land / No evidence that fence height breached council rules / No agreement between parties that Applicant would contribute to cost of fence, nor did Respondents serve fencing notice on Applicant, therefore Applicant not liable to contribute to cost of fence / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant ran a hotel that offered a “tradies package” / Package consisted of accommodation and meals for tradespeople from Monday to Friday at a special rate / Respondent stayed three nights beginning on a Monday / Applicant informed Respondent hotel fully booked over the long weekend and helped Respondent find another accommodation / Respondent left hotel without paying for accommodation and meals / Applicant claimed $381.98 from Respondent / Held: Respondent was obliged to pay claimed sum / Contract did not contemplate that Respondent could stay as long as he liked / Applicant justified in asking the Respondent to leave / Applicant complaints regarding lunch was not a good defence to the claim / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $381.98 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1998 / Respondent inspected a heat pump at Applicant’s rental property / Respondent recommended heat pump be replaced / Applicant alleged Respondent’s advice was fraudulent, claimed compensation of $15,000 / Respondent counterclaimed $2,000, comprised of $115 for unpaid invoice and $1,885 costs / Held: Applicant failed to prove any wrongdoing by Respondent / In any case, no evidence of any loss suffered by Applicant / Respondent’s charge for inspection was reasonable and proved / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $115.00 / Claim dismissed, counterclaim allowed in part.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant contracted to purchase caravan from Respondent and paid deposit / Applicant purported to cancel contract and offered to cover Respondent's incurred costs / Applicant claimed refund of $28,600.00 deposit / Held: no agreement that deposit was non-refundable / Applicant's attempt to cancel contract was accepted by Respondent / Applicant not required to purchase caravan / Applicant liable for any costs or losses Respondent incurred due to cancellation / Respondent entitled to retain $11,500.00 of deposit / Respondent ordered to pay $17,100.00 for losses / Claim allowed in part.