Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant took vehicle to Respondent for repair of engine light / Respondent checked and replaced spark plugs, coils and other parts / Car broke down after overheating on the way home / Applicant seeking refund, rental car costs and petrol costs / Whether repairs done with reasonable skill and care / Held: on the balance of probabilities the issues with the car overheating were more likely to be existing / Issue not related to work carried out by Respondent / Claim dismissed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Applicant bought flight tickets for her parents from Respondent / Applicant's parents not allowed to board flight as name recorded on ticket not the same as name recorded on passport / Respondent unable to assist Applicant on time / Applicant claimed $2,828 compensation for missed flights / Held: Respondent not liable for Applicant's loss / Warning on booking page notified Applicant that Respondent is unable to assist in correcting names in tickets once booking is confirmed / Applicant should have been informed return tickets would be cancelled / Respondent did not commit any statutory or contract breach / Applicant can claim cost of return flights / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,414 / Claim allowed in part.

Negligence / Applicant owns microlight aircraft that he stored in his parent’s shed / Applicant claimed Respondent moved his aircraft and damage was incurred as a result / Applicant claimed cost of repair of $15,452.29 / Held: no evidence the Respondent damaged the aircraft when moving it nor are they responsible for any subsequent deterioration / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Limitation Act 2010 / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Accident Compensation Act 2001 / Applicant consulted Respondent about hair loss and paid $4,361 for glued-on wig / Applicant experienced bad burning to scalp and returned for four maintenance appointments / Applicant had her head shaved and was later medically diagnosed with auto-immune condition / Applicant claimed $10,000 for damages / Held: any part of claim not barred under the Limitation Act 2010 comes within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Accident Compensation Act 2001 / Claim struck out.

Contract / Contract for applicant to supply respondents with materials required to build log house / Applicant claims sum comprised of two invoices / First for materials and labour / Second for LVL beams / Respondents counterclaim for payment relating to shipping and import costs / Held: respondents must pay first invoice, no prejudice by timing of invoice / Respondents not obliged to pay second invoice, use of LVL not authorised / Counter claim dismissed, was made reasonably clear respondents would need to pay for importing and shipping materials / Outcome: claim allowed, respondents to pay applicant $3,904.38

Contract / Business entered into a written storage agreement with Applicant to pay monthly rent to store belongings / When Respondent purchased the business, its account was in arrears of $938.92 / Respondent continued to pay monthly rental and arrears remained / Applicant subsequently notified Respondent of monthly rent increases twice / Respondent failed to increase rent payments resulting in further arrears / Parties signed agreement allowing Respondent to remove their goods if they agreed to pay the arrears of $4305.05 at $200 per week / Agreement stated interest charges of 15% would be waived if Respondent paid agreed arrears / Respondent paid only $525.00, breaching  agreement / Applicant claimed remaining $3780.05 plus interest of $2409.00 over entire period arrears were owing / Held: Respondent must pay Applicant $5701.05, $1921.00 (interest), $3780.05 (arrears) / Claim allowed.

Personal Property / Applicant placed bag into storage locker owned and operated by Respondent at airport / Applicant's pin not recognised by locker / Once locker was open, Applicant's bag was not inside / Applicant's bag located in lost and found / Applicant claimed cost of transporting bag, other related costs and compensation for stress and inconvenience / Held: locker unlikely to have been faulty / No evidence of any previous faults with locker / Applicant's payment unsuccessful and locker was made available to next person / Respondent had not breached any legal duty owed to Applicant and is not liable for costs incurred / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Land law / Right of support / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent are neighbours / Due to weather event, retaining wall on boundary of two properties partially collapsed / Applicant and Respondent received insurance cover from their respective insurers for remediation work / Both agreed that Respondent will repair retaining wall at his cost and Applicant will repair fence and walkway at his cost / After commencing repairs, Respondent advised Applicant he will be halting wall repairs due to lack of funds / Applicant claimed $12,471.85 for reduced rent and other repair costs / Respondent counter-claimed $27,045 shortfall between estimated cost and insurance pay-out / Held: wall is not a fence under statutory definition therefore Respondent cannot claim for any contributions from Applicant / No agreement between parties binding Respondent to undertake repairs to the retaining wall at his cost / Claim dismissed / Counter-claim dismissed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Disputes Tribunal Act 1988 / Applicant took motorbike engine to Respondent for repairs / Repairs took some months due to supply issues / Once engine installed, motorbike still had issues, ‘blew up’ / Applicant took bike to Respondent for testing, mechanic said fault caused by earlier work, not Respondent’s repairs / Applicant claimed $2271.50 refund / Respondent counter-claimed $30,000 for defamation, harassment, and loss of business and reputation caused by negative online posts / Held: Respondent’s counter-claims already heard in District Court, outside Tribunal’s jurisdiction / Insufficient evidence to prove Respondent did not provide services with reasonable care and skill / Claim dismissed, counter-claim struck out.

Contract / Applicant purchased property from first respondent / Second respondent acted as real estate agent / Flooding in garage after settlement / Sub-surface stream above property which floods in heavy rain / Second respondent accepts this happened once before but didn’t consider it required disclosure / Held: there was an issue with water ingress into the garage that should have been disclosed / Second respondent was entitled to rely on comprehensive disclosure document when answering applicants questions / There was a misrepresentation that induced applicant into contract / Applicant entitled to damages of $20,000.00 which accords with the substantial merits and justice of the case / Outcome: claim allowed, first respondent to pay applicant. Claim against second respondent dismissed.

Negligence / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 (LTR) / Applicant turned left out of an intersection, 300-400 metres later turned right into a driveway where he was hit by Respondent / Parties dispute who was at fault / Applicant’s insurance company claimed $20,726.62 for repairs / Held: Rule 5.9 LTR provides that drivers are to be not less than 24 metres behind another vehicle if their speed is 60 km/hour or more but less than 70 kms/hour, and further behind if going faster / Respondent was approximately 4 metres behind the car in front and travelling 65Km/hour / Respondent deemed to be following too close which did not allow enough braking time when Applicant slowed to turn right / Respondent ordered to pay insurance company $20,726.62 / Claim allowed.

Tort / Bailment / Applicant visiting Respondent's premises and asked its staff to charge Applicant's phone / Applicant's mobile phone handed to another person / Applicant claimed $1,200 damaged including the cost of phone, stress and loss of information on the phone / Held: acceptance by barman to allow Applicant's phone to be charged behind the bar did not create a bailment relationship giving Applicant rights of compensation / Applicant's favour outside the service provided by Respondent / No legal obligation on Respondent's staff / Claim dismissed.