Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

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.

Negligence / Respondent hit Applicant’s vehicle causing damage / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $834.00 / Applicant claimed officer failed to submit costs incurred in time for the court to consider / Applicant did not collect $834.00 / Applicant claimed $10,260.00 for written off vehicle, storage and towing costs, phone repair costs, compensation for days off work due to injury, courtesy car costs, child picking/dropping costs, and filing fee reimbursement / Held: Respondent breached duty of care / Respondent was negligent as he failed to stop short of Applicant’s vehicle and caused collision / Respondent liable for cost of reasonable losses suffered by Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,995.92 for vehicle written off, storage and towing charges / 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.

Property / Damages / Applicant and Respondent were neighbours / Respondent cut and removed trees located on Applicant’s property near the boundary / Applicant claimed compensation for trees / Respondent counter-claimed compensation for work / Held: Respondent failed to prove Applicant consented to trees being cut / Respondent intentionally damaged Applicant’s property without consent / Respondent liable for Applicant’s loss / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $24,788.97 / Claim allowed, counter-claim dismissed.

Negligence / Applicant’s vehicle was damaged by a passing car while parked on side of road / Applicant believed damage was caused by Respondent, whose car was passing at the time / Respondent denied hitting Applicant’s car, claimed he observed another car ahead of him on the road scrape Applicant’s car / Held: Applicant failed to prove on balance of probabilities that damage was caused by Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCFA) / Applicant lent Respondent $6,000.00 for his medical expenses / Applicant and Respondent drafted an agreement / Respondent did not pay / Applicant claimed $6,400 which included loan repayment, interest and fees / Held: CCFA and its disclosure requirements did not apply / Just for the contract to be enforced in Applicant's favour / Respondent drafted  contract and clearly knew what he was signing up for / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $6,000.00 / Claim allowed.

Trespass / Applicants lived next door to property co-owned by Respondent and his brother-in-law / Applicants claim related to problems with former occupants of Respondent’s property / Former occupants threw rubbish over the fence onto Applicants’ property / Respondent stated his brother-in-law lived in the property and sometimes allowed friends to live there / Applicants sought $300.00 compensation from Respondent for removal of rubbish / Held: person liable for cost of removing rubbish from Applicants’ property was person who put the rubbish there / Respondent was not that person / Respondent not vicariously liable for that person’s actions / No legal basis to hold Respondent liable to pay compensation / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicants contracted Respondent to install cable / Fiber cable installed at 100-150 mms below surface / Cable damaged when tree on Applicants’ property fell / Applicants claimed cable should have been installed at 300 mms / Applicants sought declaration of non-liability / Respondent counterclaimed that Applicants breached contract and were liable for damage / Respondent counterclaimed for cost of repair / Held: cable installed at correct depth / No legally prescribed depth and shallow installation necessary for this particular property / Applicants not liable for damage / Terms of agreement did not clearly account for damage caused by falling tree / Ambiguity resolved against Respondent who prepared document and was relying on it / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.

Property / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant issued fencing notice to Respondent to replace section of boundary fence with single-sided palings in same style as rest of fence / Applicant provided quotation of $13,598.75 / Applicant claimed for Respondent to pay half-share / Respondent issued cross-notice for higher fence with close-boarded palings on both sides at greater price / Held: fence to be built with close-boarded palings on both sides at original height of fence / Applicant to pay $6,799.38 towards cost / Respondent to pay balance / Reasonable for Respondent to improve appearance of their property but Applicant only liable to pay for cost of existing style / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased a horse from Respondent / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented horse’s age when advertising him for sale / Applicant based claim on vet’s assessment that horse was born in 2019, was four years old at the oldest / Breeder documented that horse was born in late 2018 / Held: even if the horse was born in 2019 he would not be three and a half years old when Applicant purchased him / Not proven that Respondent misrepresented horse’s age / Horse was approaching five years old when purchased by Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant provided Respondent with relocation of household items services / Term of contract that goods were carried at owner’s risk / Applicant claimed $1,487.58 for outstanding invoice / Held: Respondent did not keep her promise to pay for services / Respondent disputed payment due to plastic storage container lids being broken during move / Contract was at “owners risk” / Carrier was not liable for loss of or damage to any goods except where loss or damage was internationally caused / No evidence presented to support claim that Applicant intentionally caused any damage / Respondent ordered to pay $1,487.58  / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased vehicle from First Respondent / Vehicle had problems with battery headlights almost immediately after purchase / Respondent replaced vehicle's battery and subsequently vehicle had issues with reversing camera and radio screen / Applicant sought to reject vehicle and claimed $15,500 / Held: insurance policy claim against Second Respondent dismissed as policy does not cover failures / Applicant had an accident whilst driving vehicle / Applicant not entitled to reject vehicle and receive refund / Damage to vehicle not related to state or condition at the time vehicle supplied to Applicant / First Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $906 / Claim against First Respondent allowed in part / Claim against Second Respondent dismissed.