Employment Court of New Zealand Te Kōti Take Mahi o Aotearoa

Contract / Applicant provided estimate of $13,763.64 to Respondent for kitchen renovation building work / Respondent paid $20,670.43 / Applicant claimed $10,078.15 for unpaid invoice / Held: no meeting of parties' minds that Respondent’s payment had been made in full satisfaction of claim / Applicant entitled to pursue claim for further payment / Respondent liable to pay only 15% increase on original estimate as Applicant had no tangible evidence on prices / Respondent ordered to pay Applicant $3,130.56 / Claim allowed in part.

Contract / Applicant engaged Respondent to renovate her house / Contract was for estimated costs of $305,211.91, signed in October / By following June, Applicant had paid $305,000 / Applicant cancelled contract because of increased costs / Project was abandoned, not all work was completed / Applicant sought cost of remediation, estimated at $29,933.00 / Respondent counterclaimed $24,890.65 for building work completed before contract was cancelled / Respondent claimed increased costs was due to higher cost of building supplies / Respondent provided evidence of invoices, expenditure and variations / Held: Applicant cannot expect the certainty of a fixed price contract when only estimated costs were agreed / Respondent had completed invoiced work / Applicant liable for the invoiced amount, $24,890.65 / Respondent not liable for any remediated costs / Claim dismissed / Counterclaim granted.

Sanctions / adviser bundled recruitment and immigration services together, and failed to appreciate professional obligations would apply to recruitment services / written agreement did not set out full description of recruitment services or fees / Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007, s3, s50, s51 / Code of Conduct 2014, cl19e, cl19f / HELD / first appearance before Tribunal / breaches were an honest mistake, and adviser acknowledges wrongdoing and has learned a lesson / it is important that written agreement covers entire services and specifies the fee / size of the fee ($18,805) is a material factor, but the client was advised of the fee before signing agreement / adviser censured / ordered to pay $500 financial penalty in light of acknowledgement and clean disciplinary record

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) / Applicant purchased CCTV cameras from Respondent via an online auction / Auction automatically sent Applicant's address which was incorrect / Applicant emailed correct address to Respondent before goods were shipped and Respondent replied / Respondent sent cameras to wrong address / Recipient refused to return cameras / Applicant sought refund of $629.95 and costs / Held: CGA provided a guarantee as to delivery / As Applicant updated his address before cameras were sent, liability for undelivered goods remained with seller / Respondent ordered to refund purchase price of $629.95 / Costs claim dismissed / Claim granted in part.

[2023] NZEmpC 51 Halse v Employment Relations Authority (Judgment of Judge Kathryn Beck, 4 April 2023) APPLICATION FOR STAY – no appeal proceedings have yet been filed – no stay can be granted – application declined –COSTS – GUIDELINE SCALE – costs awarded.

Contract / Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 / Applicant and his partner booked Respondent’s venue for their wedding / Contracted price was $5,850 / Applicant paid $600 deposit / Respondent advised Applicant month before wedding date that the venue was no longer available / Applicant and partner had to find an alternative venue at short notice/ Applicant claimed compensation of $3,751.00 from Respondent, cost of alternative venue / Held: Respondent repudiated contract / Respondent breach contractual term to provide premises / Applicant entitled to cancel contract and go elsewhere / Applicant entitled to compensation because of cost, time and inconvenience of changing venues / Applicant’s claim not allowed in full as it would be unjust for him to pay nothing for wedding venue and associated costs / Applicant entitled to 50 percent of costs claim / Respondent ordered to pay $1,875.00 to Applicant/ Claim granted in part.

Claim for costs on appeal. Respondent ordered to pay Appellant $3,972.25 ($3,772.25 costs and $200 disbursements). Appeal allowed.

Claim for costs on appeal. Appellant discontinued the proceeding and is not entitled to costs. Outcome: claim dismissed.

Appeal / complaint licensee concealed identity of bidder from appellant & conspired with the bidder to enable appellant’s husband to purchase property & disclosed the reserve price / Committee took no further action / Real Estate Agents Act 2008, s892c, s111, s134, s136 / Professional Rules 2012, r6.2, r6.4 / HELD / licensee disclosed the name of the purchaser, a purported corporate entity / not required to disclose persons behind an incorporated entity, or that the company did not exist, unless the licensee knew the entity did not exist / disclosure would also be required if the licensee knew the husband intended to be nominated as purchaser, or if the bidder directed the licensee not to disclose their identity / no evidence that further disclosure was required / licensee did not conspire with bidder and husband / no evidence licensee disclosed reserve price to the bidder / bidder had prior knowledge of price expectations / appeal dismissed / Committee’s decision confirmed

Contract / Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 / Applicant purchased car from Respondents / Applicant started having issues with car / Applicant seeks cancellation of contract, payment of full refund and associated costs, and for Respondent to uplift car / Held: car did not meet the guarantee of acceptable quality / Respondent had been given opportunity to remedy a number of times / Applicant allowed to reject car and obtain full refund / Claim allowed, Respondent to pay $11,911 to Applicant and uplift car.

Contract / Applicant used a buggy in an off-road excursion with the Respondent / Applicant signed a waiver that he would be liable if he damaged the buggy /  Applicant was instructed to follow the tour leader through a puddle in a dip / Applicant claimed he followed the instructions however afterwards the buggy would not turn left / Respondent charged Applicant’s credit card $359.73 for repairs / Applicant disputed the charges and sought a refund / Held: not proven that the buggy failed due to damage caused by the Applicant / Applicant not liable for buggy repairs / Respondent ordered to pay $359.73 / Claim granted.

Contract / Respondent provided quote for re-cladding of two timber decks and construction of a new one / Applicant understood quote fee would be $600 but received an invoice for $2,018.25 / Applicant seeking order that not liable for full amount of invoice / Conflict between parties over what was said / Applicant had signed agreement which did not mention the $600 fee / Respondent had specified $65 per hour on the agreement / Applicant claimed that invoice was unreasonable for amount of work done / Held: fee for the work was based on a charge of $65 per hour on the agreement / Price charged was reasonable for the detailed work carried out / Applicant ordered to pay the full amount of the Respondent's invoice / Claim dismissed