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 / 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.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased carrier vests from Respondent / Applicant wished to return them as vests did not fit / Respondent refused to give refund if buyer changed their mind / Applicant claimed for refund / Held: Respondent cannot be liable as they would never know the measurements of an online purchaser / Respondent can only provide vest measurements and leave it for the purchaser to decide / Vests received by Applicant matched the description Respondent provided and were fit for purpose / Claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant took his car to Respondent for engine issues / Respondent disassembled engine to diagnose problem / Applicant approved repair completed by Respondent / Insurer declined Applicant's cover / Applicant refused to pay $16,237.80 invoice / Applicant sought declaration of non-liability to pay $10,000 of invoice / Held: Respondent misled Applicant by failing to disclose that insurer had expressed view that issue was likely manufacturing fault and therefore might not be covered / However, Applicant failed to prove he had suffered any loss by having the work done / Applicant ordered to pay Respondent $16,237.80 / Claim dismissed.

Negligence / Respondent collided work vehicle with Applicant's unattended vehicle / Respondent blacked out / Vitals taken by firefighter showed low heart rate / Applicant and insurer claimed for losses suffered as result of car being uneconomic to repair / Held: more likely than not that Respondent suffered loss of consciousness outside his control / Respondent not negligent and not liable for losses suffered by Applicant / 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.

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.

Contract / Misleading conduct / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Respondent provided Applicant with a model for fashion shoot / Applicant discovered model had a large tattoo on her arm, which was inconsistent with the look Applicant required / Respondent offered to reduce fee / Applicant had photographs photoshopped to remove tattoo / Applicant claimed $3,561.15 / Held: Respondent engaged in misleading conduct / Photograph of model on Respondent’s website without tattoo likely to lead potential client to believe she had no tattoos / Applicant entitled to compensation / Amount required to return Applicant to position it would have been in had there been no misleading conduct was $353.35, being the difference between the photoshop costs and compensation already paid / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $353.35 / Claim allowed in part.

Restitution / Limitation Act 2010 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Respondent previously a shareholder, director and employed by Applicant / Applicant previously provided internet to Respondent's home / Applicant discovered later it was still paying direct debit for internet connection / Applicant sought to be reimbursed by Applicant for moneys paid to internet provider from 2016 to 2023 / Held: Applicant time-barred from claiming for payments made from 2016 to 2017 / Applicant unable to show that Respondent received any advantage from payments made to internet provider / Claim dismissed.

Damages / Issue estoppel / Applicant owned a car used by a senior employee / Applicant’s employee parked at a seaside car park / Respondent’s employee used a leaf blower nearby / Applicant claimed car’s paintwork was damaged by sand blown onto car / Claim was heard earlier but Applicant sought a rehearing / Applicant sought $30,000 for damage to the car / Held: claim resolved in earlier decision / Issue estoppel barred the claim, but Referee considered substantive merits of the claim / Leaf blower was low powered and not close enough to damage car’s paintwork / Claim dismissed.