Disputes Tribunal of New Zealand

Fencing Act 1978 (FA) / Property Boundaries / Respondents and Applicant share property boundary / Applicant seeks new fence and seeks Respondents pay half / Applicants claim cost of surveying / Respondents claim new fence unnecessary /Held: FA requires an adequate fence between properties / Cost of fence will be split between parties / FA only covers costs of surveying and cost analyses if both parties consent to it / Applicants unable to recover surveying cost / Respondents to pay Applicant $4,286.63 / Claim partially upheld.

Contract / Misrepresentation / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant purchased a car from Respondent for $3500 / Respondent said car was safe and reliable / Afterwards Respondent discovered car needed significant work / Applicant claimed Respondent misrepresented car's condition / Applicant claimed $3500 from Respondent / Held: Respondent’s statement that car was safe and reliable was a misrepresentation / Misrepresentation induced Applicant to purchase car / Car needed significant repairs / Respondent ordered to pay $1500 given condition and age of car / Claim granted.

Contract / Applicant joined Respondent’s gym and paid $2330 / Applicant joined gym due to particular classes / Classes no longer provided / Applicant sought to cancel membership and obtain a refund / Applicant claimed $1500 / Held: Applicant terminated her contract early and the terms of conditions provided for an early termination fee of $250 / Applicant entitled to cancel her prepaid one-year gym membership without giving reasons / Respondent ordered to pay $1479.95, membership fee with early termination fee deducted and factoring in access to gym for 94 days / Claim granted.  

Contract / Applicant and children invited to live with Respondent during covid lockdown / Applicant sold items and worked on Respondent’s property / Applicant asked to leave following relationship breakdown / Applicant claims $20,000 from Respondents for work completed on the property / Respondents claim Applicant did not add value equitable to the cost of housing Applicant and children / Held: No contract between parties / No evidence Applicant paid rent to Respondent / Applicant’s evidence of work largely illegible / Applicant paid utilities to Respondent / Total rent bill at $250 per week $28,166.00 / Rent amount greatly outweighs possible benefit to Respondent / Respondents not unjustly enriched by Applicant’s work / Claim dismissed.

Gift / Loan / Dispute between Applicant and Respondent whether monetary amounts were a gift or a loan / Applicant alleged he gifted Respondent $38,000.00 and loaned them $25,000.00 (total $63,000.00) / Respondent alleged that Applicant paid them $13,000.00 in cash and $25,000.00 in direct credit / Respondent claimed both amounts were gifts / Applicant claimed for repayment of $25,000.00 / Respondent claimed no repayment and $1265.00 in compensation for legal fees / Held: evidence of timing of transactions and communication between the parties indicated $38,000.00 was given to Applicant by Respondent as a gift / Disputes Tribunal legislation usually excludes claiming of costs / Claim and counterclaim dismissed.  

Negligence \ Contributory Negligence \ Respondent was sober driver for Applicant and friends in Applicant’s car \ Respondent crashed car into another vehicle \ Applicant’s insurance would not cover the accident \ Applicant claims $6,153.94 from Respondent \ Respondent claims they are not fully liable for damage as they were distracted by the Applicant and friends/ Held: Respondent was negligent in driving the Applicant’s car \ Applicant did not take vehicles depreciation into account / Applicant and friends liable for 40% contribution \ Respondent is to pay Applicant $829.50 (60% fault contribution and depreciation)\ Claim upheld.

Contract / Applicant ordered metal profiles from Respondents and paid contract price in full / Order too large and was to be sent in two shipping containers / Second part of the order did not leave Respondent’s warehouse and alternative transport arrangements were not made / Respondent could not find order when contacted / Applicant claims they cannot use the product anymore as it has expired / Held: Product is to be made for collection immediately by Respondent / Respondent will need to recoat the metal / Respondent to pay Applicant if product is not available to be collected / Respondent to pay Applicant $4000 if product not available / Claim allowed.

Contract / Applicant’s vehicle broke down and asked Respondent to tow for inspection / Applicant and Respondent had a miscommunication regarding repair of vehicle / Applicant requested Respondent to tow vehicle back to her home / Applicant financed another vehicle / Applicant claims $1611 in loss of transportation and income / Respondent counter claims $608.35 for spare parts / Held: No agreement had been reached by the Respondent and Applicant about the repair cost of the vehicle / Applicant is liable to pay the towage and inspection fees only / Respondent not liable to pay loss of transportation and income of Applicant / Applicant to pay Respondent $391 / Claim partly dismissed.

Contract / Respondent contracted Appellant to supply and install windows and doors for total sum of $30,466.00 / workmen found additional work necessary to fulfil original contract / Respondent and Appellant agreed to extra work being added to contract price / Respondent was unable to get bank loans necessary to fund extra work / Respondent cancelled contract / Appellant claims $3,615.94 for work already done / Respondent claims contract conditional upon financing / Held: Contract is enforceable and is not subject to Respondent’s ability to get financing / Respondent to pay Appellant $3,615.94 / Claim granted.

Contract / Bailment / Applicant hired Respondent 1 to perform certification on his vehicle / Respondent 1 discovered minor defects requiring remediation / Respondent 1 delivered the vehicle to Respondent 2's workshop for repair / Respondent 2 was unable to begin working on it immediately / Respondent 2 left the vehicle in the customer parking area / The vehicle was subsequently stolen and remains unrecovered / Applicant claims $30,000. Held: Neither Respondent breached any legal duty owed to the Applicant / Claim dismissed.

Contract / Applicant and Respondent entered into a sales and purchase agreement for a house / Applicant identified issues that she advised her real estate agent about during a pre-settlement inspection / Applicant claimed $1206.44 in damages for repair or replacement / Held: Equipment to be handed over in a reasonable working order / Respondent to pay damages / Respondent to pay Applicant $506.95 / Claim allowed.

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased cabin from Respondent / Cabin was damaged / Applicant claim damage a result of poor packaging by Respondent / Applicant claims refund of cabin cost and cost of transporting cabin to their property / Held: Respondent to refund cost of cabin and additional transport cost / Respondent to collect cabin from Applicant / Respondent to pay Applicant $8,887.00 / claim allowed.

Negligence / Applicant hit pothole in vehicle causing damage to a tyre / Applicant contacted Respondent who sent contractors to fix pothole within 75 minutes / Applicant claimed Respondent knew about the pothole and failed to warn motorists / Applicant claimed compensation for loss that his insurer has not covered / Respondent claimed they had no previous knowledge of the pothole / Held: if the Respondent did owe motorists a duty of care in this instance, then it had not breached that duty as it responded quickly to fix the issue / Claim dismissed.