Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Unjust enrichment / Applicants made incorrect online bank transfer to Respondents / Applicants claim the $3,040.60 that was incorrectly paid to the Applicants / Held: Respondents have been unjustly enriched by payments made by Applicants / Respondents order to Applicants $3,040.60 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Building Act 2004 / Applicant purchased new build property / Respondent built property / Applicant noticed defects in property / Applicant claims $10,000 / Held: Applicant’s evidence was general not specific / Standard burden of proof applies / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $125 for minor damage to property / Claim dismissed.

Fencing / Fencing Act 1978 / Applicant and Respondent own adjoining properties / Applicant served fencing notice on Respondent / Respondent did not respond to notice / Applicant had fence repaired / Applicant claims $5,980.00 for cost of fence / Held: as Respondent did not respond to notice he is deemed to have agreed to the proposals set out in it which is that the Respondent pay the full cost of the fence / Respondent liable to pay / Respondent to pay Applicant balance of $5,980.00, claim allowed.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicants engaged with Respondent to uplift and transport household items from their property / Applicants witnessed the movers drop the chest of drawers causing damage / Applicant’s insurer claimed $979.00 to recover insured losses / Held: carrier not obliged to pay compensation if the goods are damaged unless it is intentional / No evidence that Respondent intentionally damaged the chest of drawers / Respondent had no liability for the damage to Applicants’ goods / Claim dismissed.

Towing / Applicant’s car was towed from a carparking building / Applicant had purchased a subscription to park in any unreserved bay in the carparking building / Applicant charged $420.00 for towing charges / Applicant claimed signage was confusing which led him to park in the wrong place / Applicant also claimed tow charge was unreasonable / Whether Respondent had the right to tow Applicant’s car / Whether costs were reasonable / Held: signage was unclear and it created confusion about where the Applicant could park / Respondent provided signage to the carparking building / Respondent had the ability to ensure signage was not confusing for carpark users / Respondent had no right to tow the Applicant’s car / Respondent ordered to pay $420.00 / Claim granted.

Tort / Conversion / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant was in the process of restoring a vehicle when incarcerated / Applicant asked friend to look after the vehicle for him / Friend transferred vehicle into his name and on sold it to the First Respondent for $25,000 / First respondent spend time and money restoring it / Applicant claims the vehicle was converted and wants the car returned to him / Held: vehicle was converted when friend put the car in his name / Applicant cannot have the vehicle returned as the First Respondent was an innocent buyer / Applicant may claim damages to the value of the car when it was converted / First Respondent must pay Applicant $25,000 / Claim partially granted / There is no basis for the claim against the Second Respondent / Claim dismissed.

Tort / Trespass / Applicant’s wife parked car in private car park for 5 minutes / Respondent sent breach notice to Applicant of $95.00 / Applicant filed declaration of non-liability / Respondent counterclaimed $1000 being $426.51 plus ongoing interest / Applicant willing to pay breach notice but not further collection costs and interest claimed by Respondent / Respondent claims Applicant’s wife liable in contract / Held: law of contract does not apply, this matter should be dealt with under law of trespass / Applicant not liable for costs as he was not person who parked in private car park / Because claim is based in tort and not contract , Tribunal cannot make declaration of non-liability in Applicant’s favour / Claim dismissed / Because there is no contract, Applicant’s wife is therefore not bound by the terms and conditions on Respondent’s website and is not liable for collection costs and interest / Applicant’s wife must pay Respondent $95.00 / Counterclaim partially granted.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant took vintage vehicle to Respondent for work / Respondent agreed to undertake the work / Respondent left Applicant’s vehicle in rain after sandblasting / Applicant claims Respondent did not show the care and skill required under CGA / Applicant claims $6,500.00 in compensation / Held: respondent did not undertake work with due care and skill / Respondent to pay applicant $6,500.00 / Claim upheld.

Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant bought vintage motorcycle from Respondent through online / Applicant claims $8,200 refund due to significant poor condition of motorcycle / Held: motorcycle is not of acceptable quality and there has been a failure to meet the guarantee / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $8,200 / Respondent ordered to collect motorcycle at his own expense / Claim allowed.

Insurance / Applicant and Respondent involved in motor vehicle collision / Settlement of costs delayed because of questions around ownership of Applicant's vehicle / Applicant proven as the owner / Vehicle went missing from Respondent's house / Applicant claims $4,990 which is the amount paid for the car as she suffered total loss / Held: applicant bears loss of ability to sell the wreck for $650 / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $4,350 / Claim partially allowed.

Contract / Consumers Guarantee Act 1993 / Applicant engaged Respondents to replace roof and install skylights / On-site related issues resulted from a storm which prompted inspection / As a result of the inspection findings Applicant held remaining payment to Respondent / Applicant claims $30,000 for replacement of skylights and flashings / Held: some elements of Respondent’s work not carried out with reasonable skill and care / Parts of roof not fit for purpose / Applicant’s entitled to some remedial costs / Counter claim is offset against Applicant’s costs of bringing claim to tribunal / Applicant to pay Respondent $9739.13.

Lack of jurisdiction / Applicant water blasting at third party’s property / Respondent called third party alleging unsafe work practice happening / Applicant claims losses resulting from actions taken by third party following call from Respondent / Held: Applicants have no legal basis for claim / Matter struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Fair Trading Act 1986 / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant carried out renovations for Respondent / Applicant and Respondent never had written contract / Renovations carried out / Respondent did not pay for renovations / Applicant claimed $1,769.40 for completed work / Respondent claimed Applicant’s representatives misrepresented contract / Held: Applicant misled Respondent about nature of contract / Not found to be intentional / Claim dismissed.