Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Contract / Property / Applicant purchased house from Respondent / Following pre-settlement inspection Applicant sent list of issues to Respondent / Issues disputed and settlement proceeded / Applicant claimed $4,850 for attending to various items / Respondent counterclaimed for time off work responding to claim, and filing fee / Held: Any water leaking from connection points is at a very minor level / Hot water connection in laundry not in reasonable working order at settlement / Rangehood in reasonable working order / Insufficient evidence to prove there was a problem with the toilet / Respondent ordered to pay applicant $20 for breach of vendors’ warranty / Claim allowed in part / Counterclaim dismissed.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Applicant purchased vehicle from Respondent for $9,750 / During test drive, radio and rear-view camera electronics not working / Respondent informed Applicant he had ordered module that would fix electronic defects, would supply to Applicant when it arrived, installation would cost $250 / Applicant also noticed tow bar missing, Respondent said he would supply one / Respondent never supplied module or tow bar, avoided Applicant’s efforts to follow up / Applicant claimed $3,622.50 replacement cost of module, $507 for actual installation cost, and $120 for tow bar / Held: Applicant purchased vehicle in reliance on Respondent’s representations / Applicant entitled to claimed amounts / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,249.50 / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Duty of care / Applicant disembarked train and was walking towards a footpath between parked cars / Applicant tripped on the drawbar of a parked trailer owned by Respondent / Applicant injured his wrist and head and broke his glasses / Applicant claimed Respondent owed a duty of care to warn people of the existence of the trailer drawbar resting on the concrete / Applicant claimed for replacement cost of glasses / Held: trailer was of reasonable size and could be clearly seen / Respondent entitled to park trailer in the carpark / Respondent did not owe Applicant a duty of care to hazard mark the trailer drawbar / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant booked holiday for himself and his wife with Respondent / Applicant’s wife had medical needs / When they arrived at holiday location they were informed that the hotel they booked was unavailable / Instead they were booked at a different hotel further away from their chosen location which did not meet their needs/ Applicant claimed $5,394.08 refund for return airfares and accommodation / Held: Respondent did not complete the service with reasonable care and skill / Respondent failed to notify Applicant of hotel change / Applicant lost the opportunity to change travel plans / Alternative accommodation booked by Respondent was not fit for purpose due to Applicant’s wife medical needs and location of hotel / Respondent ordered to pay $5,394.08 / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Applicant had boat accident and lost one of his hearing aids and other was damaged / Applicant had purchased hearing aids for $12,000.00 / Applicant filed an insurance claim seeing replacement cost of hearing aids / Insurance claim was declined by Second Respondent insurer / Applicant sought $5,000.00 / Held: Hearing aids not analogous with personal effects such as water skis / Hearing aids were in the category of personal electronics / Policy did not cover loss of Applicant’s hearing aids / Second Respondent entitled to decline claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant made booking to rent second respondent’s bach through first respondent / Booking later cancelled / First respondent accepted cancellation and refunded cleaning cost but retained booking fee and accommodation deposit / First applicant was contracting party in the rental agreement / Held: Applicant entitled to refund from first respondent / Second respondents not liable to repay any accommodation costs / First respondent ordered to pay $1469.10 to Applicant / Claim allowed.

Negligence / Vehicle collision / Land Transport Act 1988 / Land Transport (Road User) Rule 2004 / Applicant and Respondent involved in vehicle collision / Applicant and its insurer claimed $30,000 for damages to vehicle, including uninsured losses $2,640.99 / Held: Respondent responsible for crash by failing to give way at roundabout / Repairs claimed for damage to Applicant's vehicle supported by invoices provided /  Towing and rental costs reasonable but are unable to be claimed as it exceeds the Disputes Tribunal's $30,000 limit / Claim allowed.

Respondent leased commercial premises from applicant family trust / Respondent business struggled during covid / Despite some rent relief it had rent arrears / Arrears not paid / No agreement about ongoing use of premises / Respondent stayed in downstairs area but used toilets upstairs / Applicant claims for rent arrears and reinstatement costs for fluorescent lighting tubes / Applicants total claim is $15,735.47 / Respondent counter claims for spending on stock and increased business costs on basis applicant encouraged them to stay in business / Respondent says covid rent-relief should have been higher, and that there were significant roof leaks / Held: 20% reduction for leaking is appropriate / Respondent liable for lighting tubes / Trust not liable to pay business losses / Outcome: claim allowed, respondent liable to pay $13,464.22

Contract / Tort / Applicant booked restaurant for event / Respondent then cancelled venue hire / Applicant claims return of $8,635.00 paid to restaurant / Applicant also claims against Respondent in negligence, claiming his failure to adequately arrange hire led to financial loss / Upon investigation, there appears to be no such restaurant / Applicant claims Respondent is owner of Restaurant / Respondent states they are just employee / Held: tribunal is unable to determine in what capacity the Respondent is involved with restaurant / Respondent cannot therefore be held personally liable under contract / Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to decide on Applicant’s negligence claim / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Council inspected Applicant’s swimming pool and required it be emptied until fencing repaired / There was heavy rain and pool lifted and deep end and was damaged / Applicant filed claim with their insurer, the Respondent / Respondent declined claim due to an exclusion for subterranean pressure in insurance contract / Respondent offered $5000.00 as a good will gesture / Applicant claims the sum of $30,00.00 towards the cost of replacing the pool / Held: not proven that pool lifted due to subterranean pressure / Exclusion clause in contract does not apply / Outcome: claim allowed, Respondent to pay sum to Applicant.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased 2007 car from Respondent for $7000 / Car advertised as ‘reliable’ / Four days after purchase, car broke down, mechanical issues discovered / Applicant claimed cost of attending to mechanical issues / Held: reliable cars do not break down soon after purchase / Car was therefore misrepresented / Applicant would not have bought car at price she did if aware of issues / Compensation should be reasonable and proportionate, taking into account age and mileage of car, and absence of ‘due diligence’ on Applicant’s part in not getting car checked before purchase / Applicant entitled to compensation for cost of getting car back on road / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $388.66 / Claim allowed.

Consumer law / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant started fat reduction treatment / Applicant was unhappy with results and found them painful / Applicant claimed she was guaranteed some sort of weight reduction / Applicant sought refund of $4,290.00 for treatments / Held: Applicant unable to prove there were any misleading promises or representations regarding outcome, or that treatment was unfit for purpose / Applicant unable to conclude she was misled, especially given her acknowledged low pain threshold and persistence with treatment / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant purchased food trailer / Applicant suffered COVID related health issues and could no longer operate business / Applicant asked Respondent to either buy trailer from him or sell trailer on his behalf / Applicant discovered Respondent used trailer for business without complete payment / Applicant claimed $15,000 / Held: no contract for sale and purchase of trailer / Handwritten ledger unaccepted as evidence of payment / Respondent ordered to return food truck to Applicant / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $1,500 / Claim dismissed.